*7 

11 


iiSliiiiiiill 


!ii 

I'fiiiiti 

ill  li 

1 
•  1 1*1 

i  :! 

1 

i 

THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 
in  the  Light  of  To-day 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

IN  THE 
LIGHT   OF   TO-DAY 

A  STUDY  IN  MORAL  DEVELOPMENT 


BY 

WILLIAM  FREDERIC  BADE 

Professor  on  the  Frederick  Billings  Foundation 

for  Old  Testament  Literature  and  Semitic  Language! 

Pacific  Theological  Seminary 

Berkeley,  California 


BOSTON    AND    NEW  YORK 

HOUGHTON  MIFFLIN  COMPANY 

(3Tbe  flrtJcrtfibc  prcjfj  Cambribtje 

191 5 


COPYRIGHT,    I9IS,    BY    WILLIAM    FREDERIC    BADE 
ALL    RIGHTS    RESERVED 

Published  November  iqij 


tt  L     V      t 


J5S 

117/ 

3 


\  INSCRIBED  TO 

THE  MEMORY  OF  MY  WIFE 

I 


EVELYN  MARY 


We  came  to  know 
Tbe  master-lesson  and  the  riddle's  key: 
Unending  love  unending  growth  shall  be 


4(}£G31 


PREFACE 

The  one  thing  of  supreme  importance  in  the  Old 
Testament,  actually  and  historically,  is  the  idea  of 
God  —  the  focal  point  of  its  significance  for  humanity. 
That  idea  did  not  come  in  full  feather,  nor  fall  as  a  bolt 
from  the  blue.  In  a  long  history  of  progress,  it  presents 
the  necessity  of  choice  between  the  higher  and  the 
lower,  the  better  and  the  worse.  The  advance  of  Bib- 
lical scholarship,  and  the  change  from  an  instructional 
to  an  educational  view  of  revelation,  have  made  the 
choice  easier,  so  that  a  rich  heritage  need  no  longer 
prove  a  poor  possession.  The  helpful  teacher  of  the 
Old  Testament  now  employs  the  higher  achievements 
of  Israel's  religion  as  grave-diggers  for  the  defunct 
moral  crudities  that  have  dropped  by  the  way.  The 
usual  procedure  has  been  to  embalm  them  with  a 
"Thus  saith  the  Lord,"  and  to  carry  them  along  until 
the  living  expire  under  the  dead. 

I  cherish  the  modest  hope  that  this  book  may  help 
students  and  teachers  of  the  Old  Testament  to  find  a 
new  and  securer  place  for  it  in  the  religious  thought  of 
our  time.  Although  it  embodies  results  of  ten  years  of 
special  study  and  practical  experience  in  teaching,  it 
still  falls  so  far  short  of  its  simple  purpose  that  I  shall 
be  the  last  to  consider  it  blamed  unduly  if  it  meets 
with  evil  as  well  as  good  report. 


Vlll 


PREFACE 


The  first  draft  of  its  contents  was  delivered  eight 
years  ago,  at  the  Berkeley  Summer  School  of  Religion, 
as  a  series  of  lectures  under  the  title,  "The  Idea  of  God 
in  the  Old  Testament."  Since  then  the  scope  of  the 
book  has  been  greatly  amplified.  If  it  comes  as  a  tardy 
fulfilment  of  the  expectations  of  my  students  and 
friends,  I  hope  the  maturer  work  which  it  embodies 
will  prove  a  partial  compensation  for  the  delay. 

It  has  been  my  constant  endeavor  to  meet,  as  un- 
technically  as  possible,  the  difficulties  of  men  and 
women  to  whom  the  Old  Testament  is  still  a  valuable 
part  of  the  Bible,  but  who  find  it  an  indigestible  ele- 
ment in  the  Biblical  rationale  of  their  beliefs.  In  my  own 
case,  as  in  that  of  others  who  were  brought  up  under 
the  traditional  view  of  the  Scriptures,  a  frank  evalua- 
tion of  the  morals  of  the  Old  Testament  in  the  light  of 
historical  criticism  has  proved  the  only  effective  solv- 
ent. For  this  reason  I  have  not  been  content  merely  to 
record  facts,  but  have  applied  to  them  the  moral  judg- 
ments which  lie  implicit  in  the  thought  of  moral  prog- 
ress. Not  to  make  within  the  Bible  those  moral  dis- 
tinctions by  which  men  now  live  their  daily  lives,  is  to 
cut  it  off  from  further  participation  in  the  vital  con- 
cerns of  mankind. 

I  have  tried  to  keep  the  footnotes  within  as  small  a 
compass  as  possible,  and  yet  to  give  the  most  essential 
evidence  and  references  to  literature.  H.  P.  Smith's 
Religion  of  Israel,  and  J.  P.  Peters's  Religion  of  the 
Hebrews,  did  not  appear  in  time  to  be  included  among 


PREFACE 


IX 


the  citations  of  literature.  A  selected  bibliography 
covering  the  entire  field  of  my  investigations  is  in  con- 
templation for  the  second  volume.  My  original  plan, 
to  cover  the  whole  period  of  Hebrew  religious  develop- 
ment in  one  volume,  had  to  be  abandoned  in  the  in- 
terest of  a  fuller  and  more  adequate  treatment.  The 
exilic  and  post-exilic  period  will,  therefore,  be  treated 
separately. 

More  than  ordinary  attention  has  been  devoted  in 
this  volume  to  a  study  of  the  decalogue.  A  first  draft 
of  my  tentative  conclusions  was  published  in  the  Uni- 
versity of  California  Chronicle,  a  little  over  a  year  ago, 
under  the  title,  "The  Decalogue  a  Problem  in  Ethical 
Development."  Reprints  of  the  article  were  sent  to 
Old  Testament  scholars  in  all  parts  of  the  world  with  a 
request  for  an  expression  of  opinion.  There  was  a  most 
generous  response,  which  might  have  been  even  more 
complete  had  it  not  been  for  the  outbreak  of  the  great 
European  war.  The  chapter  on  the  decalogue  has 
been  rewritten  and  amplified  in  the  light  of  this  cor- 
respondence. 

Now  that  a  part,  at  least,  of  my  task  is  completed, 
my  grateful  acknowledgments  are  due  to  John  Wells 
Morss,  of  Boston,  whose  more  than  friendly  interest 
and  encouragement  have  been  unfailing;  to  my  col- 
leagues, President  Charles  Sumner  Nash  and  John 
Wright  Buckham,  for  wise  counsel  which  has  ever 
been  at  my  service;  to  Karl  Marti,  of  the  University 
of  Berne,  for  many  helpful  suggestions;  to  Charles  F. 


x  PREFACE 

Aked,  Winston  Churchill,  and  Charles  Mills  Gayley, 
for  the  advantage  derived  from  friendly  discussions 
of  problems  broached  in  my  study;  and  to  Miss  Clara 
Lyford  Smith  for  valuable  suggestions  in  the  last  stages 
of  my  manuscript,  for  a  verification  of  the  Scripture  ref- 
erences, and  for  the  preparation  of  an  index. 

I  feel  prompted,  also,  to  acknowledge  a  long-standing 
debt  of  gratitude  to  my  former  teachers  at  Yale :  Pro- 
fessor Frank  C.  Porter,  Frank  Knight  Sanders,  and 
Edward  L.  Curtis.  The  last-named  has  passed  on,  but 
his  well-remembered  kindnesses  and  the  charm  of  his 
spirit  abide. 

To  her  whose  pure  and  radiant  self  is  wrought  into 
all  this  book  contains  of  strength  and  truth  and  hope,  I 
dedicate  it  with  infinite  regret  that  she  was  not  des- 
tined to  see  finished  what  we  planned  together. 

William  Frederic  Bade. 

Berkeley,  California, 
June,  1 gi 5. 


CONTENTS 

Introduction 

Two  views  of  the  Old  Testament  still  contending  for 
mastery  —  Source  of  disorder  in  religious  education  — 
Fact  of  moral  growth  must  be  admitted  —  Relation  be- 
tween general  culture  and  religion  —  What  moral  develop- 
ment implies  —  Task  of  determining  chronological  order 
of  materials  for  study  —  Literary  chronology  of  the  Old 
Testament xv 


List  of  Abbreviations 2 

CHAPTER   I 

The  Old  Testament  under  Sentence  of  Life 

Proposals  to  eliminate  it  from  religious  education  — 
Retention  desirable,  but  conditioned  on  a  different  use  — 
Implied  recognition  of  religious  evolution  in  the  Bible  — 
Explicitly  recognized  by  Jesus  —  His  moral  criticism  of  the 
Old  Testament  —  Moral  vision  of  his  followers  obscured  by 
letter-worship  —  Historical  criticism  demands  moral  criti- 
cism— Need  of  a  new  conception  of  revelation — Response 
to  the  demands  of  a  new  world-view  —  Not  faith  itself,  but 
mistaken  reasons  for  faith  under  review 3 

CHAPTER   II 

Moral  Beginnings  of  Hebrew  Religion 

No  direct  sources  from  the  time  of  Moses  —  Adapta- 
tion and  expurgation  of  traditions — Indirect  testimony  of 
the  sources  —  Criterion  afforded  by  antagonism  between 
Bedawin  and  Fellahin  —  Characteristics  of  Bedawin  — 
Of  Half-nomads  —  Of  Fellahin  —  Nomadic  survivals  in 
Israel's  religion  —  Ritual  and  institutional  survivals  — 
Nomadic  reactions  against  agriculture  —  Surviving  effects  v 
of  primitive  social  institutions  —  Blood-revenge,  marriage, 
concubinage,  slavery 18 


xii  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  III 

Moral  Character  of  Jahveh  and  his  Clients  in  the 
Early  Literature 

Character  of  the  sources  —  Political  origin  of  ideas  about 
Jahveh  —  His  local  and  intramundane  character  —  Expla- 
nation of  his  extra- Palestinian  appearances  —  Tomb  versus 
Sheol  —  Evidence  of  Jahveh's  fixedness  —  Resulting  lim- 
itations —  Distrust  of  his  purposes  —  His  irascibility  — 
Attitude  toward  non-Israelites  —  Moral  obligations  bind- 
ing only  between  countrymen  —  Current  Israelite  practice 
invested  with  divine  sanction  —  Covenant  idea  and  impli- 
cations —  Involves  obligation  to  observe  taboos  —  Im- 
moral beliefs  and  consequences 54 

CHAPTER   IV 

Origin  and  Moral  Significance  of  the  Decalogue 

Result  of  a  long  development  —  Two  different  deca- 
logues —  Relative  antiquity  of  ritual  and  standard  deca- 
logues —  Variant  forms  of  standard  decalogue  —  Ad- 
dressed to  men  only  —  To  be  observed  only  by  He- 
brews —  Discussion  of  individual  precepts  —  Question 
about  the  third  commandment  —  Ancient  Sabbath  a  full- 
moon  festival?  —  Parents  and  children  —  Origin  of  dual 
standard  of  sex  morality  —  Summary  —  Morality  by  com- 
mand an  immoral  theory  —  Divine  legislation  through 
human  sense  of  right 87 

CHAPTER  V 

Pioneers  of  a  New  Era:   Amos  of  Tekoa  and  Hosea  ben- 
Beeri 

Greatness  of  Amos  —  Review  of  earlier  beliefs  —  De- 
clares inseparability  of  religion  and  morality  —  Denuncia- 
tion of  the  cultus  —  New  ideas  of  right  and  wrong  —  Not 
a  monotheist  —  Only  material  benefits  expected  of  religion 
—  Comparison  of  pre-exilic  and  N.  T.  beliefs  —  Idea  of 
retribution  —  Similarity  of  Hosea's  message  —  Empha- 
sizes love;  Amos,  justice  —  Also  attacks  the  cultus  — 
Prophet  versus  priest  —  Lights  and  shadows  of  his  message  132 


CONTENTS  xiii 

CHAPTER  VI 

The  Prophet  of  Holiness:  Isaiah  ben-Amoz 

Isaiah's  many-sided  greatness  —  Statesman,  reformer, 
poet,  theologian  —  Prophetism  and  its  changing  ideas  of 
revelation  —  Possession-theory  and  ecstatic  prophetism  — 
Reason  and  reflection  as  channels  of  revelation  —  Charac- 
ter versus  ceremonial  —  "Holy  through  righteousness"  — 
The  "glory"  of  Jahveh  —  New  grandeur  impressed  upon 
the  idea  of  God  —  Counsels  of  trust  —  Unsparingly  de- 
nounces the  sacrificial  ritual 167 

CHAPTER  VII 

The  Monojahvism  of  Deuteronomy 

Deuteronomy  not  monotheistic  —  Alternation  of  Jahveh 
and  Baal  worship  unhistorical  —  Coalescence,  instead,  of 
Canaanite  and  Hebrew  religion  —  Term  "baal"  applied 
to  Jahveh  —  Cultus  attacked  as  Canaanite  by  the  prophets 
—  Worst  features  of  Jahveh-Baal  worship  proscribed  — 
The  ark  ignored  —  Evidence  of  many  local  Jahvehs  — 
Diverse  influences  behind  Deuteronomic  reform  —  Moral 
versus  ritual  reform  —  One  Jahveh,  one  sanctuary  — 
Monojahvism  not  monotheism  —  Jahveh's  supremacy  — 
Summary 187 

CHAPTER  VIII 

The  Social  Ethics  of  Deuteronomy 

Prophets'  relation  to  the  ethics  of  D  —  Slavery  counte- 
nanced —  Its  abuses  mitigated  for  Hebrews  only  —  Dis- 
criminations against  clients  and  aliens  —  Discriminatory 
regulations  about  debts  —  Effect  of  national-god-idea  upon 
sense  of  moral  obligation  —  Preferential  treatment  of 
specified  races  —  Feuds  bequeathed  —  Ammonites,  Moab- 
ites,  Amalekites — Deuteronomic  exclusivism  —  Humani- 
zation  of  earlier  laws  —  Stepmother-marriage  —  Widows 
are  victims  of  innovations  —  Social  ethics  evaluated  by 
death-penalties  —  Effect  of  making  idolatry  a  capital 
offence  —  Holiness  or  taboo 218 


xiv  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  IX 

The  First  Great  Heretic:  Jeremiah  of  Anathoth 

Some  facts  of  personal  history  —  Probably  not  a  sup- 
porter of  Deuteronomy  —  Opposes  its  misuse  by  the  in- 
violability party  —  Champions  reform  of  character  against 
reform  of  ritual  —  The  temple  no  palladium  —  Shiloh :  an 
appeal  to  history  —  False  criterion  for  judging  prophets  — 
Issue  between  dogma  and  ethics  —  Jeremiah  denies  Mosaic 
origin  of  sacrifice  —  An  ethical  monotheist  —  Implicitly  an 
individualist  —  The  new  covenant 258 

CHAPTER  X 

The  Repudiation  of  Ritual  Religion  by  the  Pre-Exilic 
Prophets 

Repudiation  of  sacrifice  the  distinction  of  Israel's  reli- 
gion —  Calling  the  witnesses  —  Distortion  of  their  testi- 
mony by  later  editors  —  Protest  of  a  Psalmist  —  Atone- 
ment by  sacrifice  a  priestly  doctrine  —  Prophets  tolerate 
sacrificial  system  for  its  social  uses  —  Abuses  of  the  system 
—  Deuteronomic  sacrifice  accords  with  prophetic  ideas  — 
Exploitation  of  Deuteronomic  regulations  by  the  Jerusa- 
lemite  priesthood  —  Misdevelopment  inaugurated  by  Eze- 
kielj —  Conclusion 281 

Appendix 

A.  "Jehovah"  and  "Jahveh" 313 

B.  Duhm  on  Jer.  8:8 315 

Index  of  Scripture  Citations         321 

Index  of  Subjects 323 


INTRODUCTION 

Two  views  of  the  Old  Testament  still  contend  for 
mastery  among  the  adherents  of  Christianity.  The  one 
regards  it  as  a  sort  of  talisman,  miraculously  given  and 
divinely  authoritative  on  the  subject  of  God,  religion, 
and  morals,  in  every  part.  The  other  regards  it  as  a 
growth,  in  which  the  moral  sanctions  of  each  stage  of 
development  were  succeeded  and  displaced  by  the 
next  higher  one. 

A  former  generation  called  into  question  chiefly  the 
historical  difficulties  presented  by  the  traditional  view. 
The  present  generation  is  troubled  by  the  crudity  of 
its  moral  implications,  and  by  what  Matthew  Arnold 
rather  severely  characterized  as  "its  insane  license  of 
affirmation  about  God."  Even  the  late  Henry  Drum- 
mond,  who  came  close  to  the  thinking  youth  of  his  day, 
observed  that  the  difficulty  which  young  men  had  in 
accepting  the  Old  Testament  was  no  longer  intellec- 
tual, but  moral. 

Under  the  traditional  scheme  of  the  Bible  its  moral 
content  is  all  of  one  piece.  To  quote  one  of  its  defend- 
ers, "The  Bible  itself  knows  of  but  one  kind  of  inspira- 
tion, and  that  is  an  inspiration  which  extends  to  every 
chapter,  verse,  word,  and  syllable  of  the  original 
Scriptures,  using  the  mind  and  mouth,  the  heart  and 
hand  of  the  writers,  guiding  them  in  the  least  particu- 


xvi  INTRODUCTION 

lar,  guarding  them  against  the  least  blunder,  and  mak- 
ing their  utterance  the  very  word  of  God  to  our  souls. 
.  .  .  The  Scripture  and  the  entire  Scripture,  claims 
to  be,  and  is  in  fact,  altogether  exempt  from  errors 
or  mistakes  of  any  sort."1 

A  certain  well-known  Bible  Institute,  recently  in- 
corporated under  the  laws  of  California,  contains 
the  following  item  in  its  statement  of  doctrine:  "The 
Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  are  without 
error  or  misstatement  in  their  moral  and  spiritual 
teachings  and  record  of  historical  facts.  They  are  with- 
out error  or  defect  of  any  kind."  To  this  statement  of 
belief  "every  officer,  teacher,  and  worker  must  sub- 
scribe once  a  year,"  and  "failure  to  insist  upon  the  pro- 
mulgation of  these  doctrines  .  .  .  constitutes  ground 
for  suit  for  the  reversion  of  money  contributed  for  the 
erection  of  the  building  and  the  return  of  same  to  the 
original  donors  or  their  heirs." 

While  he  believes  with  the  same  intensity  in  the 
high  mission  of  the  Bible,  the  modern  historical  student 
cannot  subscribe  to  any  such  view  of  its  contents. 
He  feels  called  of  God  to  start  with  the  facts,  not 
with  a  dogma.  Where  the  traditionalist  sees  one  un- 
broken plain  of  heaven-descended  perfect  morality,  the 
thoughtful  man  of  to-day  finds  "a  land  of  hills  and 
valleys,"  as  the  Deuteronomist  said  of  Palestine.  It  is 
one  thing  to  have  a  strong  faith  in  the  inspiration  of 
the  Bible;  quite  another,  to  make  it  serve  in  the  place 

1  J.  H.  Brookes,  Anti-Higher  Criticism,  p.  334. 


INTRODUCTION  xvii 

of  man's  equally  God-given  intelligence.  Jesus  taught, 
and  human  history  illustrates,  the  fact  that  men  must 
struggle  for  the  truths  which  they  hope  to  possess. 
This  was  as  true  of  the  Israelites  as  of  those  who  study 
the  record  of  their  struggle  to-day.  Refusal  to  recognize 
the  obvious  stages  of  moral  progress  by  which  Israel, 
under  divine  guidance,  wrought  out  its  high  destiny,  is 
not  only  to  rob  the  Old  Testament  of  its  human  in- 
terest and  dramatic  appeal,  but  to  make  it  a  serious 
stumbling-block  to  those  who  need  its  passion  for 
righteousness  in  their  own  lives. 

The  real  source  of  disorder  in  our  religious  education 
is  this  artificial  doctrinal  coordination  of  different 
stages  of  moral  development,  contained  within  the 
Bible.  For  while  in  most  universities  and  theological 
seminaries  the  substance  and  spirit  of  Old  Testament 
scholarship  find  expression  in  terms  adequate  to  the 
intelligence  and  needs  of  our  time,  the  great  mass  of 
religious  instruction  outside  exhibits  little  more  than 
forced  accommodation  to  the  new  standards.  The  re- 
sult is  moral  confusion,  anguish  of  soul,  and  ultimate 
indifference.  Granting  that  distinctions  of  fact  under- 
lie distinctions  of  worth,  it  scarcely  is  necessary  to  en- 
large upon  the  viciousness  of  a  method  that  ignores  not 
only  stages  of  religious  development  within  the  Old 
Testament,  but  loses  sight  also  of  essential  differences 
between  the  Old  and  the  New. 

Until  a  substantial  moral  inequality  between  the  Old 
and  the  New  Testament  is  recognized  in  Biblical  in- 


xviii  INTRODUCTION 

struction,  the  student  will  have  difficulty  in  seeing  that 
the  former  is  developmentally  as  well  as  historically 
subordinate  to  the  latter.  The  differences  between  suc- 
cessive periods  of  Old  Testament  religion,  and  between 
the  Old  Testament  as  a  whole  and  the  New  Testament 
as  a  whole,  are  differences  of  growth,  and  consequently 
of  moral  authoritativeness.  With  respect  to  much  in 
Hebrew  religion  the  student  has  done  his  full  duty 
when  he  has  traced  its  origin  and  assigned  it  a  place  in 
the  development  of  human  thought.  There  are  intel- 
lectual conceptions,  moral  ideals,  motives,  and  rites, 
which,  in  spite  of  their  divine  sanctions,  have  fortu- 
nately forever  fallen  below  our  moral  horizon.  With  re- 
spect to  still  other  areas  of  Old  Testament  thought,  his- 
torical study  will  leave  men  disinclined  to  attempt  any 
spiritual  appropriation  of  what  belongs  so  completely 
to  the  past.  The  process  of  discrimination  involved  in 
such  study  will  free  them  from  the  false  obligation  to 
justify  the  unjustifiable,  and  in  the  language  of  Job,  to 
"speak  unrighteously  for  God."  Their  moral  no  less 
than  their  intellectual  difficulties  with  the  Bible  will 
vanish  in  direct  proportion  to  their  willingness  to  make 
room  for  the  cancellations  of  development  in  matters  re- 
ligious as  well  as  scientific. 

For  a  just  appreciation  of  the  facts  of  moral  develop- 
ment in  Hebrew  religion,  it  is  necessary  to  realize  at  the 
outset  that  religion  and  general  culture  were  practi- 
cally inseparable  in  antiquity.  In  their  reactions  upon 
each  other  this  is  true  to-day.   But  the  further  one  goes 


INTRODUCTION  xix 

back  into  the  beginnings  of  human  history,  the  more 
the  different  forms  of  authority  which  regulate  men's 
actions  are  seen  to  merge  into  one.  What  we  now  call 
morals  is  in  the  earliest  times  represented  by  a  body  of 
tribal  customs  rigidly  enforced  upon  all  members  of  the 
community  by  discipline  and  habit.  What  we  now  call 
civil  law  is  represented  by  a  series  of  prohibitions  and 
punishments  unsparingly  enforced  by  all  members  of 
the  tribe  upon  the  refractory.  What  we  now  call 
science  is  represented  by  a  series  of  myths  and  legends, 
giving  supernatural  reasons  for  tribal  customs  and  the 
fierceness  with  which  any  infractions  of  those  customs 
were  to  be  punished.  What  we  now  call  religion  was  a 
part  of  all  three  sets  of  facts,  and  its  chief  practical 
manifestation  was  a  disposition  to  provide  existing 
practices  with  divine  sanctions.  Since  religion  in  prim- 
itive times  was  not  a  body  of  abstract  beliefs,  but  con- 
cretely a  part  of  almost  all  that  we  would  class  as  gen- 
eral culture  in  the  form  of  tribal  institutions  and 
customs,  and  since  primitive  culture  undeniably  has, 
by  a  long  process  of  evolution,  developed  into  modern 
civilization,  it  follows  inevitably  that  religion  has 
shared  with  civilization  this  process  of  progressive 
development.  It  passed  by  stages  from  the  crudest 
expressions  of  the  religious  instinct,  in  nature,  ances- 
tor, and  fetish  worship,  to  the  exalted  form  in  which 
it  has  expressed  itself  in  the  teachings  of  Jesus. 

When,  therefore,  we  speak  of  the  development  of 
morals  and  religion,  or  of  the  moral  content  of  religion, 


xx  INTRODUCTION 

we  are  using  an  elliptical  term  and  really  mean  the 
development  of  the  morally  religious  man.  The  truth 
of  this  is  obvious,  and  it  implies  that  the  development 
of  the  morally  religious  man  is  at  the  same  time  the 
development  of  the  rational  man,  the  artistic  man,  the 
civilized  man.  No  less  is  the  history  of  moral  ideals  in 
Hebrew  religion  a  history  of  human  growth,  which  ex- 
hibits on  the  one  hand  a  process  in  man ;  on  the  other, 
a  progress  in  idea  and  institution.  The  process  is  the 
growing  fitness  of  the  vehicle  of  revelation.  The  prog- 
ress is  the  growing  moral  perfection  of  the  religion. 
Needless  to  say,  the  conception  of  revelation  that  un- 
derlies this  study  regards  it  as  an  illumination  from 
within,  not  as  a  communication  from  without;  as  an 
educative,  not  as  an  instructional,  process. 

The  materials  which  must  form  the  basis  of  our 
study  lie  embedded  in  the  literature  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. They  are  in  the  form  of  religious  ideas,  hopes, 
and  rites,  set  forth  in  terms  of  Hebrew  history,  life,  and 
institutions.  This  mass  of  ideas  cannot,  of  course,  be 
reduced  to  a  systematic  theology  such  as  was  formerly 
in  fashion.  One  can  trace  the  course  of  a  river,  but  one 
may  not  treat  it  as  a  lake.  So  the  religious  progress  of 
Israel  may  be  traced  like  a  river  through  the  highlands 
and  lowlands  of  Israel's  literature.  It  may  be  described 
in  order,  but  not  set  forth  systematically  as  a  unified 
theology.  Obviously  we  must  know  the  historical 
sequence  in  which  that  literature  grew  up,  and  the 
political  and  cultural  environment  which  determined 
its  changing  social  ideals,  for 


INTRODUCTION  xxi 

".     .     .     every  fiery  prophet  of  old  time, 
And  all  the  sacred  madness  of  the  bard, 
When  God  made  music  through  them,  could  but  speak 
His  music  by  the  framework  and  the  chord." 

An  enormous  amount  of  critical  acumen  has  been 
expended  upon  the  literary  analysis  of  the  writings 
of  the  Old  Testament  with  a  view  to  determining  the 
age,  or  relative  chronology,  of  its  several  parts.  That 
task  may  now  be  said  to  be  accomplished ;  for  the  un- 
certainties that  remain  do  not  affect  large  issues.  As  a 
result  of  this  analysis,  verified  by  linguistics,  by  the 
history  of  laws  and  institutions,  by  the  testimony  of 
the  monuments,  and  by  our  knowledge  of  the  history 
of  contemporary  nations,  the  actual  and  approximate 
dates  of  the  various  books,  and  of  literary  strata  within 
composite  books,  of  the  Old  Testament,  are  now  known 
with  a  remarkable  degree  of  precision.  This  knowledge 
naturally  has  become  the  basis  for  a  reinterpretation  of 
Hebrew  morals  and  religion  in  terms  of  development. 
It  is  unfortunate  that  the  Psalms  cannot  be  used  with 
the  same  assurance  as  other  parts  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. Their  individual  dates  are  on  the  whole  quite 
uncertain,  and  the  evidence  of  religious  experience,  or 
doctrine,  which  they  contain  must,  therefore,  be  ad- 
duced as  auxiliary,  rather  than  as  fundamental.  The 
reader  may  occasionally  find  advantage  in  getting  his 
chronological  bearings  by  reference  to  the  following 
table.  No  attempt  has  been  made  to  give  analytical 
details.  These  will  be  found  in  various  modern  trea- 
tises on  Old  Testament  Introduction. 


xxii  INTRODUCTION 

Literary  Chronology  of  the  Old  Testament 

B.C. 

Moses  (no  authentic  literary  remains) c.  1300-1200 

Early  traditions  and  songs 1200-1000 

*J    Document     (Jahvist).     Materials     scattered 

through  the  Pentateuch  and  Joshua 850 

*E    Document     (Elohist).     Materials    scattered 

through  the  Pentateuch  and  Joshua f  750 

Amos  and  Hosea 750-  735 

Isaiah  (authentic  materials  in  chaps.  1-39) 740-  700 

Micah,  chaps.  1-3 725-  690 

J  and  E  compiled  into  a  single  document c.  650 

Nahum c.  650 

Zephaniah c.  630 

*  Deuteronomy  (D)  written  about  650,  published  .  .  f  621 
Jeremiah   (a  great  part  consisting  of  later  addi- 
tions)    626-  586 

Habakkuk     c.  600 

Babylonian  Exile 597~  53^ 

Ezekiel 592-  570 

Lamentations 586 

Historical  books  up  to  Kings  edited  in  the  spirit 

of  Deuteronomy 600-  570 

JE  combined  with  D c.  560 

Deutero-Isaiah  (Isaiah,  chaps.  40-55) c.  540 

Haggai  and  Zechariah 520 

Trito-Isaiah  (Isaiah,  chaps.  56-66),  mostly 500-  460 

Job  (containing  later  additions) c.  450  or  later 

Psalms  (collected,  edited,  in  large  part  composed)..  520-  150 

*  Priests'  Code  (P),  Leviticus,  etc 550~t  450 

Malachi,  Ruth,  Joel,  Jonah,  Obadiah 460-  350 

Pentateuch  completed  (JEDP)  by  addition  of  P. .  c.  420 

Chronicles  and  Ezra-Nehemiah 35°~  25° 

Song  of  Songs c.  350 

Book  of  Proverbs  (containing  older  materials) 300 

Ecclesiastes c.  250 

Daniel c.  165 

Esther c.  150 

c.  circa,  about.                     *  Principal  documents.  t  Legal  codes. 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 
in  the  Light  of  To-day 


LIST  OF  ABBREVIATIONS 

AJSL  =  American  Journal  of  Semitic  Languages  and  Literature. 
AJT  =  American  Journal  of  Theology. 
AOTB  =  Altorientalische  Texte  und  Bilder. 

AS  =  Alttestamentliche  Studien. 
HSAT  =  Heilige  Schrift  des  Alten  Testaments. 
JBL  =  Journal  of  Biblical  Literature. 

LXX  =  The  Septuagint,  or  Greek  Version  of  the  Old  Testament. 
OTSS  =  Old  Testament  and  Semitic  Studies. 
PSBA  =  Proceedings  of  the  Society  of  Biblical  Archaeology. 
RGG  =  Religion  in  Geschichte  und  Gegenwart. 
SBOT  =  Sacred  Books  of  the  Old  Testament  (Polychrome). 
ThSK  =  Theologische  Studien  und  Kritiken. 
ZAW  =  Zeitschrift  fur  die  alttestamentliche  Wissenschaft. 


THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 
IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  TO-DAY 

CHAPTER   I 

THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  UNDER  SENTENCE  OF  LIFE 

During  the  past  generation  there  have  been  numer- 
ous proposals  to  eliminate  the  Old  Testament  from  the 
religious  education  of  the  young.  It  is  one  of  the  ways 
in  which  the  modern  defection  from  traditionalism  and 
authority  in  religion  has  manifested  itself.  The  reasons 
most  commonly  urged  for  this  step  have  been  the  fol- 
lowing: — 

i.  That  Christianity  has  no  exclusive  connection 
with  Israelitish  history  and  with  Judaism.  That  the 
Jewish  descent  of  Jesus  in  no  way  proves  the  depend- 
ence of  the  New  Testament  upon  the  Old.  That  in  the 
realm  of  thought,  Christianity  was  something  entirely 
new  and  independent,  having  been  prepared  for  quite 
as  much  by  the  great  thinkers  of  Greece,  Rome,  and 
the  non-Semitic  Orient,  as  by  the  Hebrew  prophets. 
That  therefore  it  is  both  needless  and  useless  to  educate 
our  youth  into  Christianity  by  the  roundabout  way  of 
the  Old  Testament.  That  Paul's  address  at  Athens, 
spoken  to  hearers  who  were  not  Jews,  blazed  the  way 
for  a  more  direct  approach  to  the  desired  end. 

2.  That  there  is  an  element  of  danger  in  obliging  the 


4  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

youth  of  our  day  to  hold  ideal  intercourse  with  men 
and  women  whose  attitude  toward  life  was  totally  dif- 
ferent from  ours,  and  whose  social  ethics  stood  upon  a 
moral  plane  far  beneath  that  of  our  time.  That  even 
the  most  persistent  and  violent  exegetical  and  homi- 
letical  torture  cannot  make  the  Old  Testament  stories 
confess  to  moral  standards  which  their  writers  did  not 
know.  That,  in  any  case,  it  is  mischievous  to  mingle 
without  discrimination  material  from  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments  because  serious  confusion  of  moral  stand- 
ards in  the  mind  of  the  student  is  liable  to  ensue. 

Let  us  concede  at  once  that  there  is  much  truth  in 
these  objections.  But  they  also  contain  a  subtle  ad- 
mixture of  error.  It  is  true  that  we  have  ceased  to  re- 
gard the  Old  Testament  as  the  only  source  of  New 
Testament  Christianity.  Many  other  currents  of 
thought  and  history  have  poured  their  contents  into 
its  channel.  It  is  true  that  a  considerable  part  of  the 
Hebrew  Scriptures,  as  will  be  seen,  has  not  only  ceased 
to  exert  a  positive  influence  upon  Christian  thought, 
but  is  fraught  with  harm  where  it  is  set  forth  as  pos- 
sessing, or  ever  having  possessed,  divine  sanction.  In 
its  fundamental  conception  of  divine  requirements  the 
legal  religion  of  the  Old  Testament  is  irreconcilably 
at  variance  with  that  of  the  pre-exilic  prophets.  The 
priestly  ritual  of  Leviticus  has  no  more  right  to  be 
heard  upon  the  moral  questions  of  our  age  than  the 
book  of  Esther,  whose  ethical  standards  are  con- 
demned outright  by  the  teaching  of  Jesus. 


UNDER  SENTENCE  OF   LIFE  5 

But  when  these  and  similar  deductions  have  been 
made,  the  fact  remains  that  the  Old  Testament  is  the 
best  introduction  to  the  New.  Christian  doctrines  can 
be  fully  understood  and  fairly  judged  only  when  seen 
in  their  historical  perspective,  and  the  Old  Testament 
alone  enables  us  to  trace  their  origin  and  growth.  In 
order  to  furnish  this  approach,  however,  the  Old  Testa- 
ment cannot  be  used  as  a  fixed  body  of  truth  standing 
beside  the  New  Testament.  It  is  the  record  of  a  moral 
struggle  that  lies  behind  the  teaching  of  Jesus  and  the 
apostles,  and  even  in  its  best  parts  it  rarely  rose  above 
transient  statements  of  moral  truths  and  principles. 
The  doctrinal  coordination  of  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ments which  still  holds  the  ground  in  popular  religious 
education,  is  the  real  grievance  of  objectors  to  the  Old 
Testament.  But  their  proffered  remedy,  to  drop  the 
Old  Testament  out  of  religious  education,  is  worse 
than  the  disorder.  It  would  break  the  bond  of  histori- 
cal continuity.  Doctrinal  coordination  should  give 
place  to  historical  subordination  in  which  the  principle 
of  development,  "  first  the  blade,  then  the  ear,  then  the 
full  grain  in  the  ear,"  receives  adequate  recognition. 
With  the  adoption  of  this  attitude  toward  the  Bible  as 
a  whole,  and  the  Old  Testament  in  particular,  the  ob- 
jections mentioned  above  are  vacated.  For  the  harm 
lies  not  in  dealing  with  imperfect  moral  standards,  but  in 
failure  to  recognize  them  as  imperfect. 

It  would  be  both  unscientific  and  unreasonable  to 
expect  on  the  part  of  Israel's  religious  leaders  knowl- 


6  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT 

edge  of  the  laws  of  evolution  in  advance  of  man's  sci- 
entific study  of  the  facts  of  nature  and  of  life.  It  does 
not  seem  to  be  God's  way  anywhere  to  endow  men 
miraculously  with  information  which  the  exercise  of 
faculties  he  has  given  them  is  sufficient  to  secure. 
Still,  the  fact  that  religion  has  shared  with  other  inter- 
ests of  the  human  spirit  the  struggle  from  lower  to 
higher  levels  did  not  altogether  escape  the  attention 
of  Biblical  writers. 

The  unknown  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
declared  that  "God,  having  of  old  time  spoken  unto  the 
fathers  in  the  prophets,  in  many  fragments  and  in 
many  fashions,  hath  at  the  end  of  these  days  spoken 
unto  us  in  his  Son."  What  is  fragmentary  is  not  per- 
fect. What  is  varied  in  fashion  is  not  the  result  of  di- 
vine experiment,  but  expresses  the  diversified  abilities 
of  God's  spokesmen  in  different  times  and  different 
cultural  environments.  They  differed  among  them- 
selves because  each  man  had  to  answer  according  to  his 
ability  the  particular  questions  which  his  own  times 
were  putting.  The  statement  implies  a  progressive  rev- 
elation, the  growth  of  the  knowledge  of  God  among 
men. 

The  example  and  the  teaching  of  the  Christ  deter- 
mined the  moral  level  upon  which  the  gains  of  the  fu- 
ture were  to  be  made.  The  founders  of  Christianity 
recognized  in  his  coming  the  culmination  of  the  his- 
torical process,  but  not  its  ending.  The  writer  of  the 
Gospel  of  John  was  far  along  upon  the  stream  of  events, 


UNDER   SENTENCE   OF   LIFE  7 

but  he  still  saw  it  flowing  directly  out  of  the  thought 
of  Jesus,  for  he  attributed  to  him  the  statement:  "I 
have  yet  many  things  to  say  unto  you,  but  ye  cannot 
bear  them  now.  Howbeit  when  he,  the  Spirit  of  truth, 
is  come,  he  will  guide  you  into  all  truth."  There  were 
human  limits  to  a  divine  revelation,  and  the  barriers 
were  destined  to  fall  only  before  the  larger  knowledge 
that  answers  a  deeper  need.  Nineteen  centuries  of 
Christian  thought  and  experience  have  become  tribu- 
tary to  this  ampler  knowledge  of  God,  and  still  the 
stream  is  widening  on  its  way  through  broader  valleys 
of  human  experience. 

A  study  of  what  are  held  to  be  genuine  sayings  of 
Jesus  shows  that  he  regarded  the  Jewish  Scriptures  of 
his  time  as  a  preparation  for  himself.  In  other  words, 
they  were  transitory  in  relation  to  himself  — •  subject 
to  the  cancellations  of  development.  New  Testament 
scholars  are  beginning  to  doubt  the  genuineness  of  the 
saying:  "Till  heaven  and  earth  pass  away,  one  jot  or 
one  tittle  shall  in  no  wise  pass  from  the  Law  until  all  be 
accomplished."  It  is  in  flat  contradiction  with  the  gen- 
eral tenor  of  Jesus'  teaching.  But  even  if  it  were  ac- 
cepted, it  would  have  to  be  read  in  the  light  of  his 
definition  of  what  he  meant  by  the  Law,  as  when  he 
said:  "Whatsoever  ye  would  that  men  should  do  unto 
you,  even  so  do  ye  also  unto  them:  for  this  is  the  Law 
and  the  Prophets."  Again:  "Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord 
thy  God  with  all  thy  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul,  and 
with  all  thy  strength,  and  with  all  thy  mind,  and  thy 


8  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

neighbor  as  thyself.  On  these  two  commandments  the 
whole  Law  hangeth,  and  the  Prophets."  Reference  to 
the  chapter  entitled  "The  Social  Ethics  of  Deuter- 
onomy" will  show  how  little  the  real  Law  had  in  com- 
mon with  this  lofty  evaluation  of  its  essence.  It  was 
a  virtual  rejection,  as  wrong  or  irrelevant,  of  more 
than  seventy-five  per  cent  of  what  the  Jewish  doctors 
understood  by  the  Law.  In  the  face  of  such  a  fact 
it  is  superfluous  to  inquire  what  becomes  of  the  jot  and 
the  tittle  of  ritual  punctiliousness,  or  of  that  Bible 
letter-worship  in  the  interest  of  which  the  passage  is 
often  quoted. 

There  were  other  occasions  on  which  Jesus  rejected 
parts  of  the  Law.  Some  of  its  precepts  He  interpreted 
far  beyond  their  literal  and  original  meaning,  in  order 
to  bring  them  up  to  his  loftier  moral  standard.  And 
there  were  times  when  he  directed  his  conduct  in  su- 
perb indifference  to  its  most  explicit  demands.  He 
abrogated  the  commandment  "an  eye  for  an  eye  and 
a  tooth  for  a  tooth."  In  substituting  unqualified  non- 
resistance  and  forgiveness  he  was  replacing  revenge 
with  redemptive  justice,  which  differs  more  in  kind 
than  in  degree.  When  he  declared  that  the  Sabbath 
was  made  for  man,  and  not  man  for  the  Sabbath,  he 
disavowed  what  was  most  characteristic  in  the  Old 
Testament  conception  of  the  Sabbath.  In  regard  to 
divorce,  he  boldly  challenged  the  provision  of  the 
Mosaic  Law,  saying  that  it  was  a  half-measure  accom- 
modated to  the  moral  capacity  of  the  people;  that  it 


UNDER   SENTENCE   OF   LIFE  9 

could  not  claim  to  be  an  expression  of  the  will  of  God, 
—  and  this  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  it  is  found 
among  precepts  for  which  Deuteronomy  claims  divine 
authority. 

Finally,  nothing  could  be  more  revolutionary  than 
his  opposition  to  the  cleansing  ordinances  of  the  Law, 
when  he  declared,  "There  is  nothing  from  without  the 
man,  that  going  into  him  can  defile  him."  l  This  state- 
ment strikes  hard  at  the  regulations  of  ritual  purity 
that  form  so  large  a  part  of  the  priestly  religion  of  the 
Old  Testament.  It  is  not  surprising  that  One  who 
maintained  such  utter  moral  independence  of  the 
Mosaic  Law  should  on  one  occasion  have  ascribed  the 
character  of  transitoriness  to  the  entire  Scriptures  of 
his  time:  "The  Law  and  the  Prophets  were  until  John: 
from  that  time  the  gospel  of  the  kingdom  of  God  is 
preached."  2  The  occasional  obedience  which  the  sy- 
noptic tradition  reports  him  to  have  rendered  to  some 
formal  rules,  must  be  accounted  for  on  the  ground  of 
expediency,  not  of  principle.  Since  expediency  derives 
its  warrant  from  circumstances,  it  is  relative  and  tran- 
sient, and  must  alter  with  changes  of  time  and  place. 

The  liberty  and  duty  of  moral  criticism  of  the  Old 
Testament,  therefore,  has  been  bequeathed  to  the 
Church  by  Jesus  himself.  By  his  supreme  indifference 
to  many  observances  of  the  Old  Testament,  by  his  de- 
liberate transgression  of  others,  by  his  criticism  of  its 
ethics  and  morality  as  inadequate,  by  his  recognition 

1  Mark  7:  15.  2  Luke  16:  16. 


io  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT 

of  its  transitory  character,  as  also  by  his  failure  to  be- 
queath commands  about  circumcision,  sacrifice,  or 
temple-worship,  Jesus  inaugurated  that  higher  life  of 
the  spirit  to  which  the  Old  Testament  could  serve  only 
as  a  stepping-stone.  To  the  assumption  and  exhibi- 
tion of  the  idea  of  development,  as  applied  to  the  Old 
Testament,  we,  therefore,  have  a  right  to  add  its  as- 
sertion by  One  who  could  correct  with  final  principles 
what  "was  said  to  them  of  old  time."  It  should  be 
noted,  however,  that  his  denial  of  finality  to  the  Old 
Testament  was  combined  with  an  attitude  of  reverence 
toward  it  as  the  record  of  a  splendid  struggle  after 
God  which  he  had  come  to  fulfil.  He  looked  not  back 
but  forward,  and  putting  his  hand  to  the  plough, 
drove  it  deep  through  the  hardened  crust  of  barren 
tradition,  and  placed  the  Old  Testament  under  sen- 
tence of  life. 

Passing  to  the  apostles  one  finds,  strangely  enough, 
that  they  narrowed  the  scope  of  criticism,  if  they  did 
not  deny  it  altogether.  They  apparently  accepted  the 
moral  criticism  applied  to  the  Old  Testament  by  Jesus, 
but  they  also  believed  in  the  literal  inspiration  of  the 
text.  A  thorough  comprehension  and  acceptance  of 
Jesus'  principles  would  have  prevented  the  apostles 
from  binding  themselves  and  their  converts  once  more 
to  the  letter  of  the  Jewish  Scriptures.  They  did  not, 
could  not,  fully  comprehend.  They  accepted  their 
Master's  moral  appraisal  of  Old  Testament  teaching 
and  institutions,  but  with  it  accepted  also  the  rigid 


UNDER  SENTENCE  OF  LIFE         n 

letter-worship  of  the  Jewish  doctors  of  their  time. 
Two  things  so  absolutely  at  variance  with  each  other 
could  not  long  coexist  without  conflict.  So  it  came 
about  that  what  at  first  tended  to  silence  critical  in- 
quiry eventually  raised  critical  questions  even  more 
acute  than  those  of  the  Old  Testament  itself.  The 
moralcriticism  applied  to  the  Old  Testament  by  Jesus 
implies  our  right  to  employ  textual,  historical,  and 
philosophical  criticism.  On  the  other  hand,  modern 
historical  criticism  of  the  Old  Testament  has  furnished 
new  warrant  for  his  moral  criticism,  by  relegating  to 
the  realm  of  historical  fiction  many  a  story  and  incident 
formerly  quoted  by  literalists  in  support  of  ethically 
questionable  doctrines  and  beliefs. 

The  Old  Testament,  no  less  than  the  New,  contains 
a  record  of  religious  experience.  Men  have  called  it  a 
revelation.  It  will  be  apparent  that  under  a  modern 
world-view,  and  in  the  light  of  the  considerations  ad- 
duced above,  the  word  "revelation"  requires  a  new 
interpretation.  There  is  no  authoritative  definition 
of  the  word  by  the  Church.  Were  we  to  follow  John 
Stuart  Mill's  prescription  for  such  cases  our  definition 
ought  to  come  at  the  end  and  not  at  the  beginning  of 
our  study.  Bishop  Butler's  observation,  that  men  are 
not  competent  judges  beforehand  of  what  may  be  ex- 
pected in  the  content  of  a  revelation,  applies  equally  to 
the  method  of  revelation.  Considerable  light  will  be 
thrown  upon  the  method  of  revelation  in  the  course  of 
our  discussions,  especially  in  the  chapter  on  Isaiah, 


12  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT 

though  this  is  not  the  end  toward  which  the  work  is 
directed.  But  there  are  reasons  why  it  is  desirable  to 
come  to  an  understanding  at  this  point  concerning  the 
meaning  of  a  term  which,  for  want  of  a  less  ambiguous 
substitute,  we  shall  occasionally  be  forced  to  employ. 

The  word  "revelation "  carries  a  fairly  definite  mean- 
ing in  popular  usage.  According  to  this  meaning, 
which  formerly  expressed  accurately  enough  the  pre- 
vailing thought,  "Revelation  is  the  communication  to 
men,  by  some  external  agency,  of  truths  which  they 
could  not  arrive  at  by  internal  processes  of  their  own 
minds."  This,  substantially,  is  Trench's  definition  in 
his  "Study  of  Words":  "  God's  revelation  of  himself 
is  a  drawing  back  of  the  veil  or  curtain  which  concealed 
him  from  men;  not  man  finding  out  God,  but  God  dis- 
covering himself  to  man."  It  is  tantamount  to  saying, 
revelation  is  instruction,  not  education,  or  experience. 

Against  the  word  "revelation"  so  understood  we 
wish  to  enter  an  early  protest.  Thoughtful  men  every- 
where are  abandoning  this  old  conception,  which  came 
in  as  a  correlate  to  the  transcendent  idea  of  God,  and 
to  a  world-view  that  has  been  outgrown.  A  God  apart 
from  the  world  was  necessarily  believed  to  reveal  him- 
self from  without,  objectively.  The  older  apologists 
also  identified  revelation  with  the  entire  contents  of 
the  Bible,  sought  external  supports  for  revelation  in 
miracle  and  prediction,  and  depreciated  the  function 
of  reason  as  an  organ  of  knowledge.  This  interpreta- 
tion of  revelation  in  terms  of  information  about  ritual 


UNDER  SENTENCE  OF  LIFE         13 

requirements,  and  relatively  petty  matters,  by  means 
of  divination,  dreams,  and  prediction,  can  no  longer 
hold  the  attention  of  serious-minded  men.  It  was  part 
of  a  framework  of  thought  about  a  world  created  by 
fiat,  recent  in  origin,  small  in  extent,  corrupt  in  nature, 
degenerative  in  its  history,  and  subject  to  miraculous 
interferences  with  its  laws. 

It  is  a  different  world  of  thought  in  which  men  are 
now  living.  There  are  no  limits  to  our  universe,  no 
anticipated  end  to  its  duration.  It  is  "dynamic  in  all 
its  elements,  law-abiding  in  all  its  forces  and  areas,  de- 
veloping through  an  immanent  process  of  evolution  by 
resident  forces,  and  moving  on  to  a  far-off  divine  event 
when  the  purposes  of  God  will  be  realized  in  a  per- 
fected humanity."1  The  change  from  transcendence  to 
immanence  in  our  thought  of  God  has  involved  the 
corresponding  transition  from  an  objective  to  a  sub- 
jective theory  of  revelation.  Hence  for  our  time  and  for 
our  purposes  the  word  "revelation  "  is  used  to  describe 
a  process  almost  the  reverse  of  what  is  commonly  un- 
derstood by  it.  Not  through  the  medium  of  external 
agencies,  but  in  and  through  personality  does  God  re- 
veal himself  to  men.  The  divine  Reason  within  man 
"is  the  candle  of  the  Lord."  Conscience  and  intellect 
are  God's  prophets  to  the  soul.  Formerly  credited  with 
a  secondary,  or  even  antagonistic,  function,  they  are 
now  seen  to  be  of  supreme  importance.   Hegel,  with  a 

1  Daniel  Evans,  Divine  Revelation  and  the  Christian  Religion.   Dudleian 
Lecture,  Harvard  University,  1912. 


14  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

close  approximation  to  the  Apostle  Paul,  said:  "The 
spirit  of  man  whereby  he  knows  God  is  simply  the 
Spirit  of  God  himself."  With  less  of  Hegelian  panthe- 
ism, John  Caird  writes:  "Reason,  following  in  the 
wake  of  faith,  grasps  the  great  conception  that  the  re- 
ligious life  is  at  once  human  and  divine  —  the  concep- 
tion that  God  is  a  self -revealing  God,  .  .  .  and  that  the 
highest  revelation  cf  God  is  the  life  of  God  in  the  soul 
of  man."  In  the  words  of  Daniel  Evans,  "The  ulti- 
mate reality  registers  itself  in  the  human  consciousness. 
Revelation  is  not  in  the  outer  realm,  but  in  the  inner 
through  the  outer.  .  .  .  The  religious  progress  of  the 
race  means  an  ever-deepening  experience  of  the  incom- 
ing of  this  divine  reality  into  its  life,  an  increasingly 
higher  level  of  interests  on  which  the  divine  and  hu- 
man meet,  a  constantly  growing  spiritualization  of 
the  media  through  which  the  divine  comes,  and  a  pro- 
gressively larger  interpretation  of  the  meaning  of  this 
experience."1  Different  thinkers  state  their  view  of 
the  process  somewhat  differently,  but  they  are  agreed 
in  saying  that  revelation  is  a  divine  illumination  from 
within,  and  not  a  communication  from  without;  that 
while  the  religious  experience  which  we  call  revelation 
may  come  in  a  great  variety  of  forms,  it  must  own 
brotherhood  with  other  experiences,  and  come  to  the 
mind  in  conformity  with  the  normal  functioning  of  its 
powers. 

1  Daniel  Evans,  Divine  Revelation  and  the  Christian  Religion.  Dudleian 
Lecture,  Harvard  University,  1912. 


UNDER  SENTENCE  OF  LIFE         15 

Did  the  limits  which  we  have  set  ourselves  for  this 
discussion  permit  a  further  pursuit  of  this  subject,  it 
would  be  easy  to  show  that  this  is  precisely  the  view  of 
revelation  implied  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus.  Besides,  it 
is  the  only  theory  that  is  compatible  with  unity,  with 
continuity,  and  with  the  idea  of  development.  What  is 
still  more  striking,  it  will  become  perfectly  clear  in  the 
course  of  our  investigation  that  even  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, though  seemingly  supporting  the  older,  external 
view  of  revelation,  implicitly  compels  us  to  aban- 
don the  same.  For  again  and  again  it  will  be  found  that 
the  thing  represented  as  an  event,  or  phenomenon,  in 
the  natural  world,  was  really  in  its  origin  an  inner  fact 
of  consciousness,  externalized  and  interpreted  as  a  fact 
of  the  phenomenal  world  —  an  inevitable  concession 
to  primitive  modes  of  thought  and  to  the  unconscious 
demand  for  concreteness  during  the  earlier  stages  of 
religion.  The  voice  in  the  garden,  the  divine  visitors 
at  Mamre,  the  burning  bush,  the  physical  manifesta- 
tions and  thunderous  deliverances  on  Mount  Sinai, 
the  tables  of  stone  themselves,  belong  to  the  poetry,  to 
the  religious  psychology,  of  Israel's  religion,  not  to  the 
historical  facts  of  its  history.  As  an  incidental  proof  of 
this  statement  it  may  be  remarked  that  in  the  course  of 
centuries  the  content  of  prophetic  preaching  changed, 
and  the  prophets  gradually  modified  their  view  of  the 
manner  in  which  God  was  thought  to  reveal  his  will 
to  them.  In  other  words,  the  Hebrew  conception  of 
revelation  itself  underwent  a  development  which  was 


16  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

conditioned  by  the  advance  of  Israel's  culture.  Discus- 
sion of  details  of  this  development  will  be  more  ap- 
propriate in  connection  with  the  work  of  Isaiah. 

That  the  laws  which  are  found  to  have  controlled  the 
growth  of  Israel's  moral  and  religious  ideals  are  es- 
sentially the  same  as  those  with  whose  operation  we 
are  acquainted  elsewhere  should  occasion  no  surprise. 
Just  as  the  occurrence  of  some  elements  of  the  Mosaic 
Law  in  the  Code  of  Hammurabi,  older  than  Moses  by  a 
thousand  years,  shows  that  Hebrew  codifiers  founded 
their  legislative  system  upon  the  proved  experience  of 
past  generations,  so  the  study  of  Semitic  origins  has 
shown  that  a  number  of  religious  practices  and  in- 
stitutions, once  believed  to  be  the  peculiar  possession 
of  the  Hebrews,  were  known  and  practised  centuries 
before  this  gifted  people  made  them  a  part  of  their 
own  religious  economy.  It  is  precisely  what  our  belief 
in  the  genetic  unity  of  all  religion,  and  in  the  continuity 
of  its  development,  would  lead  us  to  expect.  Nor  does 
this  fact  furnish  cause  for  fear  lest  the  discovery  of 
such  genetic  relationships  undermine  faith  in  the  ob- 
jects of  religion  and  in  the  reality  of  revelation.  What 
it  does  undermine  is  a  theory  of  revelation  which  an 
appeal  to  the  facts  of  experience  does  not  sustain,  and 
which  in  the  interest  of  sound  religious  progress  should 
no  longer  be  suffered  to  go  unchallenged. 

It  is  a  common  observation  that  people  will  cling  to 
a  religious  belief  even  though  the  reasons  urged  for  it 
have  been  abandoned  as  unsound.  It  may  be  that  the 


UNDER  SENTENCE  OF  LIFE         17 

belief  is  true  and  that  the  real  reasons  for  it  are  differ- 
ent from  those  which  have  been  alleged.  But  while  it  is 
not  logical  to  conclude  that  a  belief  cannot  be  true  be- 
cause it  has  been  believed  for  mistaken  reasons,  in 
actual  experience  distrust  always  spreads  from  the 
reasons  to  the  belief.  It  will  be  seen  that  this  is  a  fact 
of  sinister  aspect.  The  defence  of  truth  by  means  of  un- 
truth is  one  of  the  most  serious  obstacles  which  the 
Church  of  our  day  has  to  overcome.  If  the  reason  al- 
leged for  one's  faith  is  unreason  to  the  common  intelli- 
gence, or  a  denial  of  generally  accepted  facts,  the  cause 
of  truth  is  served  with  something  like  the  famous 
wooden  horse  which  the  Trojans  dragged  as  a  palladium 
into  their  city  —  to  find  it  filled  with  enemies. 


CHAPTER  II 

MORAL   BEGINNINGS  OF  HEBREW   RELIGION 

Contemporary  literature  is  the  only  reliable  source 
for  the  study  of  morals  and  religion  in  any  age  that  is 
past.  Inquiry  for  the  religion  of  Moses,  therefore,  re- 
solves itself  at  once  into  the  question  whether  we  pos- 
sess authentic  Mosaic  documents,  or  even  traditions 
of  contemporary  origin.  Probably  few  Old  Testament 
scholars  would  now  venture  to  claim  a  genuinely  Mo- 
saic origin  for  even  the  smallest  literary  fragments  of 
the  Pentateuch.  It  is  quite  unlikely,  too,  that  any  non- 
Mosaic  traditions  have  come  down  unchanged  from  the 
time  of  the  desert  wanderings.  Of  Hebrew  literature 
earlier  than  the  ninth  or  tenth  century  B.C.  only  small 
fragments  survive,  and  these  are  almost  entirely  in  the 
form  of  songs.  Such  fragments  are  the  Song  of  Deb- 
orah, in  part;  David's  lament  over  Saul  and  Jonathan; 
the  Song  of  the  Well;  parts  of  Jacob's  Blessing;  Jo- 
tham's  Fable,  and  the  speeches  of  Balaam. 

If  it  is  impossible  to  get  back  to  the  time  of  Moses  by 
means  of  authentic  writings,  our  historical  information 
about  the  religion  of  the  patriarchal  period  is  even  more 
nebulous,  because  it  deals  with  a  past  still  more  remote. 
The  fact  is  that  the  earliest  cycles  of  tradition  about 
the  patriarchs,  the  exodus,  and  Moses  were  collected 
and  edited  for  the  first  time  during  the  ninth   and 


MORAL  BEGINNINGS  19 

eighth  centuries  B.C.,  about  five  hundred  years  after 
the  time  of  Moses.  The  collection  of  traditions  made  in 
Judah  is  known  as  J;  the  one  made  in  the  north,  in 
Ephraim,  is  designated  by  the  symbol  E,  and  their 
compilers  are  known  as  the  Jahvist  and  Elohist  respec- 
tively. Both  exhibit  to  some  extent  the  point  of  view 
of  the  earlier  prophets  and  are,  therefore,  known  as  the 
prophetic  documents.  About  650  B.C.  they  were  com- 
piled into  a  single  document  (JE)  and  suffered  consider- 
ably in  the  process,  from  expurgation,  editing,  and 
harmonizing.  A  hundred  years  later  they  were  sub- 
jected to  a  still  more  thorough  revision  at  the  hands  of 
Deuteronomic  editors.  After  two  more  centuries  had 
rolled  by  they  were  incorporated  into  the  framework 
of  the  Priests'  Code,  and  received  the  most  radical  — 
perhaps  one  should  say  most  distorting  —  revision  of 
all. 

This  obviously  is  an  extremely  condensed  statement 
of  the  very  complex  literary  history  of  the  two  earliest 
cycles  of  Hebrew  tradition.  Reference  to  the  chrono- 
logical table  in  the  Introduction  will  help  to  fix  the 
relation  of  this  history  to  the  origin  of  other  Old  Tes- 
tament books.  During  the  intervals  between  the  succes- 
sive revisions  new  generations  of  prophets  and  religious 
leaders  arose,  delivered  their  messages,  and  departed; 
but  not  without  contributing  something  to  the  cause  of 
Israel's  advancement  in  morals  and  religion.  The  vari- 
ous revisers  of  the  old  traditions  sought  to  bring  them 
up  to  date,  to  adapt  them  to  the  religious  needs  and 


20  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

understanding  of  their  own  times.   This,  be  it  observed, 
was  done  several  times. 

The  purpose  of  the  redactors  was  laudable,  but  it 
has  added  greatly  to  the  confusion  and  uncertainties 
that  confront  the  student  of  the  Old  Testament.  Does 
he  want  to  find  out  what  Moses  said  and  believed?  The 
earliest  traditions  about  him  were  written  down  by  men 
who  lived  half  a  millennium  after  his  time.  These  col- 
lectors were  no  historians.  The  art  of  writing  history, 
like  every  other  art,  was  itself  the  product  of  subse- 
quent ages  of  growing  culture.  To  what  extent  did 
they  naively  attribute  to  Abraham  and  Moses  the  re- 
ligious ideas  of  their  own  time?  It  is  a  deep-seated  con- 
viction of  Old  Testament  scholars  that  the  JE  tradi- 
tions are  direct  sources  for  the  religion  of  Israel  only 
as  it  was  at  the  time  of  the  writers  and  collectors.  The 
next  question  is  how  much  remains  unaltered  even  of 
these  traditions  after  so  many  successive  editings? 
The  answer  may  be  found  in  most  modern  works  on 
Old  Testament  Introduction,  or  in  such  a  work  as 
Kent's  "Student's  Old  Testament."  Thanks  to  the 
method  pursued  by  the  ancient  compilers  it  has  been 
possible  by  careful  critical  analysis  to  identify  exten- 
sive fragments  of  the  JE  traditions  embedded  in  later 
compilations  of  the  historical  Old  Testament  books. 

During  the  oral  transmission  of  traditions  the  adap- 
tive changes  were  made  constantly  and  almost  au- 
tomatically, for  the  folk-mind  does  not  transmit 
anything  that  has  ceased  to  reflect  living  interests.  Fix- 


MORAL  BEGINNINGS  21 

ation  in  writing  stopped  this  process,  except  in  so  far  as 
it  was  continued  by  editors  and  compilers.  But  even 
the  work  of  selection  and  omission  on  the  part  of  com- 
pilers becomes  tendentious  and  interpretative.  What 
was  omitted  probably  was  as  important  for  our 
knowledge  of  the  times  as  what  was  preserved.  Indeed, 
the  expurgations  probably  included  the  more  valuable 
data  regarding  earlier  times  —  motives,  customs,  ac- 
tions, beliefs  that  had  grown  out  of  joint  with  the  na- 
tional hopes  and  religious  feeling  of  a  new  age.  We 
must  be  content  to  indicate  here  in  only  the  briefest 
way  what  is  meant. 

Two  fragments  of  tradition,  one  that  the  ancient 
social-religious  groups  of  shepherds,  musicians,  and 
smiths  traced  their  descent  through  Lamech,  and  the 
other,  that  the  giants  whom  the  spies  found  in  Pales- 
tine were  the  off-spring  of  angel  marriages  mentioned 
in  the  sixth  chapter  of  Genesis,  are  of  course  irrecon- 
cilable with  the  tradition  according  to  which  Noah  and 
his  family  were  the  only  survivors  of  the  flood.  Yet 
the  editors  selected,  expurgated,  and  harmonized  these 
traditions  into  a  superficial  unity.  But  there  remain 
these  telltale  chips  from  blocks  of  primitive  tradition 
rejected  by  compilers.  It  was  a  compiler  who  identi- 
fied the  Noah  of  the  flood  with  the  Noah  of  viticulture. 
In  the  original  traditions  they  undoubtedly  were  two 
entirely  different  persons.  The  story  of  Cain  and  Abel 
is  only  a  torso.  Why  did  the  compilers  not  preserve  it 
in  its  original  form?  Was  it  Deuteronomic  editors  who 


22  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

suppressed  the  story  of  Shiloh's  destruction?  In  Jere- 
miah's time  it  still  was  so  well  known  that  he  could 
point  a  moral  for  his  enemies  with  an  allusion  to  the 
disaster.  But  not  a  word  of  it  has  come  down  to  us  in 
the  historical  books.  These  and  many  similar  facts  are 
significant. 

We  have  said  that  the  fragmentary  traditions  of  J 
and  E  can  be  used  as  direct  sources  only  for  the  time 
when  they  were  first  fixed  in  writing.  It  would  be 
more  correct  to  say  that  they  are  direct  sources  of  in- 
formation only  for  that  side  of  their  religion  and  tradi- 
tional history  which  the  early  bibliographers  permit  us 
to  see.  One  scarcely  dares  to  guess  how  important  a 
part  of  the  literary  record  is  gone  forever. 

But  the  extant  traditions  can  fortunately  be  used  as 
indirect  sources  of  information  about  the  religion  and 
customs  of  Israel  in  pre-Davidic,  and  even  pre-Mosaic 
times.  It  is  a  well-known  fact,  illustrated  in  the  history 
of  different  religions,  that  primitive  conceptions  of  God 
and  duty  survive  in  their  effects  and  often  in  their 
original  form  in  later  stages  of  religious  development. 
We  may  feel  certain  that  by  the  aid  of  such  data,  cor- 
roborated by  evidence  derived  from  the  ideas  of  kindred 
peoples  in  similar  political  conditions,  we  can  obtain  at 
least  inferential  knowledge  of  Israel's  moral  beginnings 
before  the  time  of  Moses. 

Such  sifting  is  delicate  work  and  the  conclusions 
which  the  investigator  reaches  cannot  be  advanced  with 
the  same  assurance  as  when  the  testimony  of  the  sources 


MORAL  BEGINNINGS  23 

is  direct.  The  most  useful  and  reliable  distinguishing 
mark  between  earlier  and  later  elements  of  tradition 
in  J  and  E  is  afforded  by  the  unanimous  testimony  of 
Hebrew  tradition  that  the  Israelite  tribes  were  nomads 
and  half-nomads  when  they  entered  Palestine.  Since 
cur  sources  belong  to  the  period  when  the  bulk  of 
Israel's  population  dwelt  in  cities  and  pursued  agri- 
cultural occupations,  evidence  of  nomadic  customs  and 
points  of  view  must  be  a  survival  from  an  earlier  period. 
The  line  between  nomadism  and  agriculture,  between 
Bedawin  and  Fellahin,  was  sharply  drawn  in  antiquity. 
They  differed  in  social  customs  and  in  religion.  No- 
mads scorned  intermarriage  with  farmers  and  half- 
nomads,  and  there  were  never-ending  feuds  between 
them.  What  chiefly  characterized  the  nomad  was  in- 
tense regard  for  the  bonds  of  blood  kinship,  for  the 
ceremonies  and  rights  of  hospitality,  and  a  ruthless 
Ishmaelitism  toward  all  strangers.  The  gradual  transi- 
tion from  the  nomadic  to  the  agricultural  mode  of  life, 
and  the  profound  changes  which  it  entailed  for  the  re- 
ligion of  Israel,  are  discussed  in  a  more  appropriate 
connection  in  the  chapter  on  "The  Monojahvism  of 
Deuteronomy."  We  shall  here  consider  established  the 
conclusions  set  forth  in  that  chapter. 

We  shall  have  to  pause  a  moment,  however,  to 
make  sure  that  we  are  on  the  right  road  to  the  true 
meaning  of  early  Hebrew  institutions  and  beliefs.  A 
modern  explorer,  faced  with  the  same  task  in  the  case 
of  a  newly  discovered  tribe,  or  people,  would  immedi- 


24  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

ately  proceed  to  acquaint  himself  with  the  social  or- 
ganization in  all  its  forms.  Only  by  studying  the  ex- 
ternals of  the  life  of  man  in  society  is  it  possible  to  get 
at  the  corresponding  subjective  states  which  we  call 
beliefs.  One  must  work  up  to  the  beliefs  by  way  of  the 
customs. 

Close  scrutiny  of  the  forms  of  social  organization 
shows  that  physical  necessity  and  intelligent  purpose 
have  been  interpenetrating  factors  in  their  production. 
Besides,  one  must  not  overlook  the  fact  that  the  physi- 
cal necessities  which  determine  the  desert  nomad's  life 
are  different  from  those  which  enter  into  the  life  of  any 
other  kind  of  nomad.  To  ignore  this  fact  is  to  confuse 
the  truly  unique  Bedawin  nomads  with  the  pastoral 
nomads  found  in  other  parts  of  the  world.  The  life 
of  pastoral  nomads  corresponds  more  nearly  to  that 
of  Semitic  half-nomads.  The  Semitic  desert  nomads 
were  a  very  different  people.  It  is  important,  therefore, 
to  consider  at  this  point  the  leading  social  character- 
istics of  the  three  classes  of  persons  described  as  no- 
mads (Bedawin),  half-nomads,  and  farmers  (Fellahin). 

Bedawin  or  desert  nomads.  The  Arabian  and  Syro- 
Arabian  deserts  still  furnish  examples  of  the  pure 
Bedawi  nomad.  On  the  arid  steppes  over  which  he 
roams  conditions  of  climate  and  country  determine  his 
mode  of  life  as  inevitably  now  as  they  did  three  thou- 
sand years  ago.  The  camel  is  his  chief,  if  not  his  only, 
dependence.  Dates  and  camel's  milk  are  his  staple 
diet.    Such  were  the  nomads  whom  Schumacher  en- 


MORAL   BEGINNINGS  25 

countered  in  the  region  east  of  the  Jordan  and  de- 
scribed as  follows:  "The  Bedawin  distinguish  sharply 
between  Arab  and  Bedu.  The  former  live  partly  in 
fixed  abodes  and  incline  toward  agriculture.  The  lat- 
ter are  the  real  inhabitants  of  the  desert  who  regard  the 
pursuit  of  agriculture  as  a  disgrace.  They  breed  only 
camels  and  live  on  dates  and  camel's  milk.  They 
scarcely  know  what  bread  is."  Scarcity  of  water  and 
pastures  prevent  the  typical  nomad  from  keeping 
donkeys,  cattle,  sheep,  and  goats.  A  good  part  of  his 
living  is  obtained  by  raids  into  cultivated  territory, 
and  by  the  exaction  of  tribute  from  farmers,  herds- 
men, and  caravans.1  Under  these  conditions  he  must 
be  prepared  to  move  rapidly  from  place  to  place.  The 
tent  becomes  his  characteristic  shelter  and  the  camel 
his  only  reliance  in  forced  marches  between  distant 
oases,  or  on  marauding  expeditions. 

Under  the  nomadic  ideal  of  life  the  drinking  of  wine 
was  strongly  tabooed.  Wine  was  an  agricultural  prod- 
uct whose  uses  and  effects,  unfamiliar  to  the  Bedawin, 
excited  their  disgust.  A  native  inscription  on  an  altar 
erected  by  a  Nabatsean  in  Palmyra  is  dedicated  to 
"The  good  and  rewarding  god  who  drinks  no  wine."  2 
This  agrees  with  the  observation  of  Hieronymus  of 
Cardia,  made  in  312  B.C.,  that  the  Nabatacans  "live 

1  Egyptian  inscriptions  speak  of  "sand-dwellers,"  "sand-rovers,"  or 
simply  of  "robbers."  Similarly  the  ideogram  SA.GAZ  of  the  Amarna 
letters,  standing  for  a  people  now  certainly  identified  with  the  Habiru, 
is  rendered  by  habbatum,  a  "plunderer,"  "robber,"  or  "nomad."  Cf. 
Bohl,  Kanaander  u.  Hebrder. 

*  Littman,  Journal  Asiatique,  ser.  IX,  vol.  18,  p.  382  ff. 


26  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

under  the  open  sky  .  .  .  and  it  is  a  matter  of  law 
among  them  not  to  sow  grain,  nor  to  cultivate  fruit- 
bearing  plants,  nor  to  drink  wine,  nor  to  build  a 
house.  Failure  to  conform  to  this  law  is  punished  with 
death." » 

Mohammed's  imposition  of  entire  abstinence  from 
wine  upon  the  adherents  of  Islam  was  probably  the 
revival  of  an  ancient  and  deep-seated  Bedawi  aver- 
sion, and  not  a  reaction,  as  some  have  claimed,  against 
Judaism  and  early  Christianity.  It  is  an  act  which 
must  be  judged  in  the  light  of  general  Semitic  nomad 
customs  and  feeling.  Sir  Richard  Burton,  in  describing 
his  pilgrimage  to  Al-Madinah  and  Mecca,  observed 
that  "in  the  Desert  spirituous  liquors  excite  only  dis- 
gust." 

The  following  pertinent  observations  on  nomadism 
and  agriculture  have  been  made  by  P.  Antonin  Jaus- 
sen,  active  for  many  years  as  missionary  among  the 
Arabs  in  the  land  of  Moab:  — 

"The  distinction  between  fellah  and  bedawi  is  rigidly 
maintained  among  the  tribes  which  we  are  discussing. 
The  former  is  attached  to  the  soil ;  he  plows  it  with  his 
own  hands,  cultivates  it,  and  watches  over  it;  that  is 
his  occupation,  his  profession;  he  is  an  agriculturist. 
The  bedawi,  or  inhabitant  of  the  desert,  does  not  put 
his  hand  to  the  plow;  that  is  not  work  worthy  of  his 
person,  nor  of  his  independence.  He  pretends  to  be  a 
free  man,  master  of  his  movements,  going  and  coming 

1  Diod.  XIX,  94. 


MORAL   BEGINNINGS  27 

after  his  manner  on  his  noble  courser.  He  conducts 
predatory  raids  and  makes  war;  he  raises  herds  of 
sheep,  and  especially  of  camels.  As  for  driving  ani- 
mals in  harness  along  a  furrow  —  he  will  not  lower 
himself  to  that  extent.  Such  is  the  Bedawin  estimate 
of  work  in  the  fields.  They  regard  it  as  employment 
fit  for  slaves,  or  for  persons  of  inferior  rank."1 

There  are  marked  characteristics  which  distinguish 
Semitic  nomads  in  their  social  organization.  The  most 
salient  fact  about  this  social  organization  is  its  practi- 
cal identity  with  kinship  organization.  But  kinship,  as 
here  used,  must  be  distinguished  from  consanguinity. 
Under  the  latter  reckoning  a  man's  kin  includes  both 
his  father's  and  his  mother's  people.  But  the  type 
of  kinship  with  which  we  are  here  dealing  includes 
one  side  only  —  that  of  the  father.  The  bonds  of  this 
patrilineal  blood-kinship  are  very  closely  drawn,  and 
the  obligation  of  blood-feud  for  murderous  attacks 
made  by  outsiders  against  a  member  of  the  kinship 
group  are  inescapable  and  inexorable.  "A  Bedawi 
will  take  his  blood-revenge  after  forty  years,"  says  an 
Arabic  proverb.  Although  it  was  anciently  customary 
to  pay  and  accept  a  hundred  camels  in  composition  of  a 
murder,  it  was  considered  more  honorable  not  to  ac- 
cept "the  price  of  blood,"  but  to  retaliate  by  taking 
the  life  of  the  murderer,  or  of  one  of  his  kinsmen. 
Among  modern  Bedawin  the  obligation  to  avenge  a 
murder  descends  to  the  fifth  generation,  and  the  "debt 

1  Coutumes  des  Arabes  (1908),  p.  240. 


28  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

of  blood"  is  inherited  by  the  murderer's  clan  for  the 
same  number  of  generations. 

Among  themselves  the  Bedawin  are  rigidly  just  and 
entertain  romantic  conceptions  of  honor.  But  any 
stranger  may  be  ruthlessly  robbed  and  slain  if  he  has 
not  been  received  as  a  guest  or  a  client.  ' '  If  thou  meet- 
est  a  stranger,  strike  him  to  the  heart.  If  he  were 
worth  anything,  he  would  have  remained  at  home"; 
so  runs  another  Arabic  proverb.  It  is  the  counterpart 
of  exiled  Cain's  complaint  that  whosoever  finds  him 
will  slay  him.  In  fact  a  man  who  had  quit  his  clan  and 
country  was  almost  always  one  who  had  been  ban- 
ished for  a  misdeed. 

We  possess  but  scanty  knowledge  of  the  religion  of 
the  Bedawin  of  pre-Islamic  Arabia.  It  is  known,  how- 
ever, that  tree-worship  existed  among  them.  The 
tree-cult  which  survives  in  Syria  and  Arabia  to  the 
present  day,  therefore,  originated  in  remote  antiquity. 
The  pre-Islamic  goddess  Uzzah,  for  instance,  was 
worshipped  in  the  form  of  three  trees. 

But  the  most  characteristic  feature  of  the  cultus  of 
ancient  Arabia  was  the  worship  of  sacred  stones.  He- 
rodotus is  our  earliest  witness  for  the  Arab  custom  of 
establishing  blood-brotherhood  by  smearing  sacred 
stones  with  blood  drawn  from  the  hands  of  the  con- 
tracting parties.1  Upright  slabs  of  stone  called  nusub, 
or  mansab,  formed  an  essential  part  of  the  religion  of 
the  Arabs.   These  steles  evidently  corresponded  to  the 

1  Herodotus,  hi,  3. 


MORAL  BEGINNINGS  29 

Hebrew  massebas,  or  pillars.  They  served  as  a  kind  of 
altar,  and  the  blood  of  the  sacrificial  victim  was 
smeared  upon  them.  Like  the  Hebrews,  the  Arabs 
were  accustomed  to  sacrifice  the  firstlings  of  their 
flocks  and  herds,  and  to  pour  the  blood  over  sacred 
stones.1  The  black  stone  in  the  wall  of  the  Kaaba, 
adopted  by  Islam,  is  only  a  survival  of  numerous  sa- 
cred stones  of  ancient  Arabia  that  served  as  fetishes  or 
dwelling  places  for  a  divine  power.2 

Half-nomads.  This  term  is  not  strictly  accurate,  but 
has  been  much  used  of  late  to  describe  classes  of  per- 
sons who  occupy  a  transitional  stage  of  development 
between  pure  nomadism  and  agriculture.  They  are 
chiefly  shepherds  and  herdsmen  who  occasionally 
combine  a  little  farming  with  their  stock-breeding. 
They  are  found  chiefly  along  the  edges  of  the  desert 
and  cannot  always  be  sharply  distinguished  from  pure 
nomads,  since  they  sometimes  keep  camels  as  well  as 
cattle  and  sheep.  The  tradition  which  makes  Jabal 
the  "father  of  such  as  dwell  in  tents  and  have  cattle" 
apparently  saw  in  him  the  ancestor  of  nomads  as  well 
as  of  half-nomads.  Failure  to  distinguish  between 
the  two  may,  indeed,  indicate  that  the  writer  was 
acquainted  only  with  half-nomads. 

The  conditions  of  pasturage  in  many  parts  of  Pales- 
tine were  such  that  half-nomads,  also,  had   to  move 

1  Cf.  I  Sam.  14:  32-35,  where  it  is  deemed  a  grievous  thing  to  slaughter 
"on  the  ground,"  and  "a  great  stone"  is  provided  by  Saul  for  the  proper 
disposition  of  the  blood. 

2  Cf.  Wellhausen,  Reste  arab.  Heidentums,  p.  102. 


30  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

from  place  to  place.  Since  flocks  and  herds  have  to  be 
watered  every  day,  springs  and  wells  were  of  supreme 
importance.  Hebrew  tradition  pictures  the  patriarchs 
and  the  sons  of  Jacob  as  half-nomads.  Abraham  and 
Lot,  Jacob  and  Laban,  had  their  quarrels  about  pas- 
tures and  watering-places.  Certain  pasture  lands  with 
their  wells  belonged  to  particular  tribal  groups,  and 
compacts  were  made  between  neighboring  clans  to 
safeguard  against  encroachment  upon  each  other's 
territory.  As  a  rule  half-nomads  are  disposed  to  yield  a 
point  in  the  interest  of  peace,  for  they  hazard  all  their 
possessions  in  a  feud.  Hebrew  tradition  accords  with 
this  fact  in  that  it  represents  the  patriarchs  as  peace- 
loving  men. 

For  their  living  half-nomads,  as  a  rule,  were  de- 
pendent upon  the  milk  obtained  from  their  sheep  and 
goats.  There  was  very  little  slaughtering  of  animals 
for  food.  Only  for  the  celebration  of  religious  feast- 
days,  or  for  the  entertainment  of  guests,  were  animals 
slaughtered.  Every  such  killing  of  an  animal  was  a 
religious  act,  a  sacrifice.  The  firstlings  of  the  flock 
were  invariably  devoted  to  this  purpose.  Where  the 
conditions  were  favorable,  half-nomads  engaged  in  a 
little  agriculture  and  established  temporarily  -fixed 
abodes.  As  a  rule  they  lived  in  tents.  In  common  with 
farmers,  half-nomads  were  exposed  to  the  raids  of 
nomadic  Bedawin  and  lived  at  enmity  with  them. 

Fellahin  or  farmers.  During  the  historical  period 
covered  by  the  Old  Testament  the  great  mass  of  the 


MORAL  BEGINNINGS  31 

Israelites  were  agriculturists.  A  certain  amount  of 
stock-breeding  probably  was  practised  in  connection 
with  farming  in  most  parts  of  Palestine.  Only  in  those 
parts  of  the  land  which  were  unsuited  to  agriculture 
did  the  raising  of  sheep  and  cattle  maintain  itself  as  a 
distinct  occupation.  Even  the  earliest  traditions  and 
laws  of  Israel  testify  to  a  time  when  agriculture  was 
the  normal  occupation  of  an  Israelite.  If  Jahveh1  ever 
was  the  tribal  deity  of  nomadic  Bedawin  who  despised 
farmers  and  farming,  shunned  settled  abodes,  and  ab- 
horred wine,  that  period  is  no  longer  within  the  mem- 
ory of  Hebrew  tradition.  Half-nomadism  is  the  only 
stage  of  previous  development  which  is  postulated,  as 
in  the  case  of  the  patriarchs.  The  first  man  is  put  into 
a  garden  "to  dress  it  and  to  guard  it."  His  expulsion 
from  Eden  still  leaves  him  a  farmer  under  aggra- 
vated conditions.  Even  Cain  is  assumed  to  have 
been  a  farmer  before  the  curse  of  Jahveh  made  him 
a  nomad. 

The  earliest  collections  of  laws,  both  in  J  and  in  E, 
are  replete  with  agricultural  sanctions  and  regulations. 
The  Book  of  the  Covenant  (Ex.  20:22-23:33)  con- 
tains much  that  is  applicable  to  the  life  of  half-nomads, 
a  fact  which  is  quite  intelligible  if  this  group  of  laws 
was  collected  in  the  grazing  regions  of  the  northern 
kingdom  among  men  like  Amos  of  Tekoa.  But  the 
code  was  not  intended  for  shepherds  and  herdsmen 
only.  The  numerous  regulations  about  fields,  har- 
1  For  use  of  "Jahveh"  instead  of  "Jehovah"  see  Note  A,  Appendix. 


32  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

vests,  vineyards,  and  olive  yards  reveal  an  unmistak- 
able background  of  agricultural  life. 

The  belief  that  Jahveh  himself  furnished  instruction 
in  husbandry,1  or  could  appear  as  the  planter  of  a  vine- 
yard,2 or  require  wine  as  a  constant  item  of  the  sacri- 
ficial offerings,  is  utterly  incongruous  with  nomadic 
ideas  and  ideals.  But  the  Jahvist,  in  the  story  of 
Noah's  discovery  of  wine,  regards  the  products  of  viti- 
culture as  a  source  of  comfort  "  from  the  ground  which 
Jahveh  hath  cursed."3  The  feast  of  tabernacles  was 
the  greatest  and  most  joyous  of  the  three  agricultural 
festivals.  It  was  celebrated  in  the  vineyards,  about 
the  wine-presses,  in  autumn.  The  feast  of  unleavened 
bread,  and  the  feast  of  weeks,  marking  respectively 
the  beginning  of  the  barley,  and  the  end  of  the  wheat 
harvest,  were  the  other  two  festivals.  The  fact  that 
every  Israelite  was  solemnly  enjoined  "to  appear  be- 
fore Jahveh"  on  these  three  agricultural  haggim  (sac- 
rificial feasts)  shows  how  far  Jahvism  had  developed 
away  from  the  life  and  religious  ideals  of  the  steppes. 
Jahveh  had  become  the  patron  of  agriculture,  and  if  he 
ever  was  the  patron  of  nomadism  the  fact  had  grown 
so  dim  in  tradition  that  even  Moses  is  naively  made 
into  a  promulgator  of  agricultural  sanctions. 

Bearing  in  mind  the  social  differences,  pet  aversions, 
and  religious  tendencies  of  the  three  classes  described 
above,  we  may  now  take  up  the  question  of  nomadic 
survivals  in  Hebrew  tradition.   We  must  assume  that 

1  Is.  28:  26.  2  Is.  5: 1-7.  3  Gen.  5:29;  cf.  9:20-27. 


MORAL  BEGINNINGS  33 

at  some  point  in  their  history  the  Hebrews  or  their  an- 
cestors were  nomads  and  possessed  a  religion  suited 
to  their  condition,  though  the  vestiges  of  that  religion 
are  neither  sufficient  in  number  nor  distinct  enough  in 
character  to  enable  us  to  describe  it  with  any  assur- 
ance. It  will  be  sufficient  to  point  out  the  most  proba- 
ble survivals,  grouping  them  for  convenience  under 
the  following  heads :  — 

1.  Objects  of  worship  and  forms  of  ritual 

There  are  remnants  of  polydemonism  in  the  Old 
Testament  which  are  best  explained  as  survivals  from 
a  pre-Mosaic  clan  life  in  the  desert  and  on  the  steppes. 
The  oak  of  the  oracle  beside  Joseph's  grave  at  She- 
chem,  the  terebinths  at  Hebron,  and  the  tamarisk  at 
Beersheba,  are  examples  of  sacred  trees  in  which  di- 
vinities were  believed  to  reside.  We  have  noted  that 
this  tree-cult  survives  to  the  present  day  in  Syria  and 
Arabia,  and  probably  differs  in  no  essential  particulars 
from  that  of  antiquity.  Analogous  developments  in 
other  religions  suggest  that  during  the  pre-Deuter- 
onomic  period  the  baals  of  famous  sacred  trees  were 
frequently  individualized  as  local  Jahvehs,  or  as  the 
numina  of  venerated  ancestors.  The  sacred  pole 
known  as  the  ashera  probably  was  in  its  origin  a  con- 
ventionalized sacred  tree. 

Holy  stones  constitute  another  class  of  natural  ob- 
jects that  play  a  prominent  part  in  the  religion  of  the 
Semites.  One  interesting  passage  of  E  mentions  such  a 


34  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

stone  as  having  been  erected  under  a  sacred  oak  in  the 
sanctuary  of  Jahveh  at  Shechem.  Joshua  there  said  to 
the  people,  "Behold,  this  stone  shall  be  a  witness 
against  us;  for  it  hath  heard  all  the  words  of  Jahveh 
which  he  spake  unto  us."  l  The  stone  was  conceived  to 
be  the  abode  of  a  spirit.  A  similar  thought  probably 
prompted  the  libation  of  oil  poured  by  Jacob  upon  the 
stone  which  he  calls  Beth-El,  "house  of  a  divinity." 
"This  stone,  which  I  have  set  up  for  a  masseba,  shall  be 
God's  house"2  (Beth-Elohim).  The  common  use  of 
the  appellation  "Rock"  3  in  the  sense  of  "God,"  even 
in  later  Hebrew  literature,  finds  its  explanation  in 
these  early  beliefs.  Since  the  same  usage  and  beliefs 
are  attested  for  the  Aramaeans  and  for  the  Arabs  of 
southern  Arabia  it  is  reasonable  to  assume  for  them  a 
common  origin  among  nomadic  Semites. 

Holy  mountains  play  a  large  part  in  the  religion  of 
the  Semites.  Since  in  Hebrew  the  same  word,  Sur,  is 
used  as  an  appellative  for  God  and  for  rocky  mountain 
heights  we  may  assume  that  holy  stones  and  holy 
mountains  were  kindred  objects  in  popular  religious 
thought.  Hebrew  tradition  locates  the  cradle  of  Jah- 
vism  on  Sinai-Horeb,  and  in  the  Song  of  Deborah 
Jahveh  comes  marching  from  Mount  Sinai  to  aid  the 
hosts  of  Israel.  Tabor,  Hermon,  Carmel,  and  especially 
Mount  Zion,  figure  as  holy  mountains  in  the  religion  of 

1  Josh.  24:26,  27. 

2  Gen.  28:22.   The  El(=divinity)  is  identified  with  Elohim  (God). 

3  Dt.  32:  15;  Ps.  62:  2.  Sur  is  compounded  with  Shaddai  in  Num. 
1 : 6,  Suri-shaddai,  "  My  Rock  is  Shaddai."  Greek  writers  mention  "stones 
with  souls"  (lithoi  empsychoi)  as  playing  a  part  in  Syrian  cults. 


MORAL  BEGINNINGS  35 

Israel.  It  was  not  an  inappropriate  observation,  there- 
fore, when  the  Syrians  said,  "Jahveh  is  a  God  of  the 
mountains." *  Since  in  the  religion  of  the  Semites 
gods  have  from  the  earliest  times  been  owners  and  res- 
idents of  mountains,  this  feature  of  Jahvism  may  be 
a  survival. 

The  importance  of  springs  to  nomads  and  half-no- 
mads has  already  been  mentioned.  As  a  natural  con- 
sequence they,  too,  were  brought  into  relation  to  the 
deity.  The  Old  Testament  mentions  a  valley  called 
Yiphtach-El,  "God  opens,"  which  doubtless  refers  to 
the  potency  of  a  sacred  spring  believed  to  be  a  cure 
for  childlessness.2  The  Fountain  of  Judgment  at  Ka- 
desh  Barnea  was  the  seat  of  an  oracle  of  Jahveh.3  The 
leading  characteristics  of  the  sanctuaries  of  Beersheba 
and  Beer-lahai-roi  were  their  sacred  springs,  as  the 
names  indicate.  Among  curious  old  superstitious  cus- 
toms, surviving  among  the  priestly  laws  of  the  Penta- 
teuch, is  an  ordeal  prescribed  for  the  detection  of 
adultery  in  a  woman.4  She  is  required  to  drink  a 
potion  of  sacred  water,  presumably  taken  from  a 
spring  like  those  mentioned.  The  potency  of  the 
water  is  increased  by  the  addition  of  dust  from  the 
floor  of  the  sanctuary  and  the  ink  in  which  the  curse 
has  been  written.  This  mode  of  detecting  guilt  through 
sacred  water  magic  is  so  common  among  Arab  nomads 

1  I  Kings  20:28;  cf.  vs.  23. 

2  Josh.  19:14,  27.  Cf.  Bcrtholet,  Schweiz.  Archiv  f.  Volkskunde,  vol. 
XVII. 

3  Gen.  14:7.  4  Num.  5:11-31. 


36  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT 

to  the  present  day  that  we  are  doubtless  dealing  here 
with  a  custom  dating  from  nomadic  times.  In  the 
light  of  these  facts  it  is  significant  that  Hebrew  tradi- 
tion brings  Moses  into  connection  with  two  places 
near  the  Fountain  of  Judgment,  known  respectively  as 
the  Place  of  Testing  and  the  Place  of  Litigation  — 
Massah  and  Meribah.1 

The  origin  of  the  ark  of  Jahveh  is  shrouded  in  mys- 
tery. But  Gressmann's  careful  analysis  of  ^he  Mosaic 
traditions  increases  the  probability  of  its  nomadic 
origin.  The  elaborate  cultus,  tabernacle,  and  rules  of 
"holiness,"  with  which  P  surrounds  the  ark,  are  now 
generally  regarded  as  the  product  of  later  ritual  theo- 
ries projected  back  into  the  Mosaic  past.  But  E's  ac- 
count of  a  plain  tent  with  its  portable  shrine,  guarded 
by  Joshua  in  person,  corresponds  to  the  circumstances 
of  nomadic  times.  The  oldest  references  to  its  use  rep- 
resent it  as  a  kind  of  fetish  which  was  employed  to  seek 
out  a  camping-site  for  the  Israelites  in  the  desert.2 
The  presence  of  Jahveh  was  identified  with  it,  for 
Moses  invoked  it  in  the  morning  with  the  words: 
"Arise,  O  Jahveh,  and  let  thine  enemies  be  scattered, 
and  let  them  that  hate  thee  flee  before  thee."  When  it 
came  to  rest  at  night  he  said:  "Return,  O  Jahveh,  to 
the  myriads  of  Israel."  3  The  Books  of  Samuel  furnish 
other  striking  evidence  of  the  identification  of  the  ark 
with  Jahveh's  actual  presence.4    The  Israelite  use  of 

1  Ex.  17:2,  7.  2  Num.  10:33. 

1  Num.  10:35,  36.  4  I  Sam.  4:7;  II  Sam.  6:2,  5,  16. 


MORAL   BEGINNINGS  37 

the  ark  in  battle  strongly  resembles  a  practice  which 
survives  in  Arabia  to-day.  What  seem  to  be  remnants 
of  former  shrines  are  mounted  upon  camels  and  taken 
into  action  as  an  incitement  for  the  warriors.1 

2.  Survivals  of  family  institutions 

We  have  established  the  fact  that  the  social  organi- 
zation of  Semitic  nomads  was  a  family  organization 
based  on  patrilineal  descent.  The  same  kind  of  family 
is  found  to  constitute  the  religious  and  social  unit  of 
early  Hebrew  society.  It  included,  besides  the  women 
and  the  children,  also  the  slaves  of  both  sexes.  The 
functions  of  worship  could  be  discharged  only  by  the 
male  head  of  the  family,  who  was  known  as  the  baal. 
Being  regarded  as  property,  women  had  no  independ- 
ent recognition  in  the  cultus  and  no  right  of  inheri- 
tance. Unless  a  trusted  male  slave  could  be  put  for- 
ward to  stop  the  gap,  the  family  ceased  as  a  religious 
and  civic  unit  when  the  last  male  representative  died.2 
The  horror  with  which  such  an  event  was  regarded  had 
its  roots  in  the  ancestor  worship  of  Semitic  kinship 
religion.  To  die  without  a  male  descendant  was  to  im- 
peril the  comfort  of  one's  own  shade  as  well  as  the  com- 
fort of  the  ancestral  dead,  whose  tendance  by  rites  at 
the  family  tomb  was  a  religious  obligation  resting  only 

1  Burkhardt,  J.  L.,  Bedouins  and  Wahabys  (London,  1831),  vol.  I, 
p.  144. 

Blunt,  Anna,  Bedouin  Tribes,  vol.  11,  p.  146. 

Doughty,  C.  M.,  Travels  in  Arabia  Deserta,  vol.  I,  p.  61;  vol.  11, 
p.  304. 

*  Gen.  15:2. 


4C23'J1 


38  THE   OLD  TESTAMENT 

upon  male  members  of  the  same  family.  Hebrew  levi- 
rate  marriage  was  a  survival  of  means  adopted  to  fore- 
stall such  a  calamity.  If  a  man  died  without  having 
left  a  son,  his  brother  was  expected  to  marry  the  widow, 
and  the  first  son  born  of  this  union  was  counted  the 
son  of  the  deceased,  "  that  his  name  be  not  blotted  out 
of  Israel."  Deuteronomy  enacted  this  old  custom  of 
family  religion  into  a  law.1 

It  should  be  added  that  the  ancient  Arab-Hebrew 
custom  according  to  which  the  nearest  male  relative  of 
the  deceased  fell  heir  to  his  wife  or  wives,  plays  a  part 
here.  But  the  fundamental  reason  for  it,  as  indicated 
above,  had  reference  to  the  dead  as  well  as  the  living. 
When  a  man  died  he  was  "gathered  unto  his  fathers," 2 
or  "slept  with  his  fathers."  3  Even  a  phrase  like  "the 
god  of  their  fathers"  remains  as  a  monument  of  the 
time  when  the  family  and  its  religion  found  continuity 
only  through  the  baal,  the  male  head  of  the  family.  It 
is  in  family  religion  that  "the  fathers,"  the  dead  an- 
cestors, play  such  a  prominent  part.  In  common  with 
other  early  peoples  the  ancient  Israelites  practised 
ancestor  worship,  as  numerous  survivals  conclusively 
show.  But  the  Deuteronomists  4  proscribed  it  as  an 
idolatrous  practice,  and  this  in  spite  of  the  fact  that 
they  sanctioned  levirate  marriage,  which  derived  its 
own  sanction  originally  from  ancestor  worship.   The 

1  Dt.  25:5/.;  cf .  the  Book  of  Ruth.  2  Judg.  2 :  10. 

3  I  Kings  2: 10. 

4  Dt.  14:1;  cf.  26:14.  For  the  best  discussion  of  ancestor  worship 
among  the  Hebrews  consult  A.  Lods,  La  croyance  d  la  vie  future  et  le 
culte  des  morts  (1906). 


MORAL   BEGINNINGS  39 

connection  between  the  two  had  apparently  been  lost 
in  the  seventh  century  before  Christ.  But  there  can  be 
no  doubt  that  ancestor  worship,  and  the  customs  and 
beliefs  connected  with  it,  reach  back  at  least  to  the 
nomadic  period  among  the  Israelites. 

Of  nomadic  festivals  only  traces  survive.  The  Pass- 
over, some  of  whose  features  mark  it  as  an  old  atone- 
ment rite,  is  the  one  which  has  most  strikingly  pre- 
served its  original  family  character.  A  lamb  is  to  be 
eaten  by  each  family  indoors,  and  no  flesh  is  to  be 
carried  outside.  Only  where  a  family  is  too  small  to 
consume  the  lamb  alone  may  it  unite  in  the  ritual  with 
a  neighboring  family.  A  comparative  study  of  ritual 
custom  tends  to  show  that  several  prescriptions  of  the 
Passover  ritual,  though  preserved  in  the  late  P  docu- 
ment,1 are  of  great  antiquity.  As  such  may  be  in- 
stanced the  following  requirements:  the  lamb  must  be 
eaten  entrails  and  all,  but  no  bones  are  to  be  broken ;  it 
must  be  roasted,  not  boiled;  it  must  be  slain  in  the 
evening  after  sunset;  some  of  the  blood  must  be 
smeared  on  the  lintel  and  door-posts  of  the  house,  as 
upon  entrance  massebas  of  a  sanctuary;  the  meat  must 
be  consumed  during  the  night  and  nothing  left  until 
the  morning.  The  latter  requirement  even  points  to  an 
origin  outside  of  Jahvism.  In  other  words  this  family 
festival  probably  had  originally  nothing  to  do  with  the 
religion  of  Jahveh,  but  was  carried  over  out  of  the  pre- 
Mosaic  family  cults  of  the  Israelite  clans,  and  domesti- 

1  Ex.  12:3-11. 


40  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT 

cated  in  Jahvism  by  connecting  its  origin  with  the 
exodus,  just  as  Roman  customs  were  domesticated  in 
Christian  tradition  and  provided  with  Christian  ori- 
gins. Some  features  of  the  ritual  mentioned  above 
survive  as  family  observances  among  Arab  nomads  to 
the  present  day. 

Another  fundamental  institution  of  family  and  clan 
organization  among  desert  nomads  is  the  practice  of 
blood-revenge,  as  we  have  already  pointed  out.  The 
custom  is  widely  diffused  in  the  world,  especially 
where  tribes  are  still  in  a  primitive  stage  of  civiliza- 
tion. In  fact,  only  under  a  clan-system  can  such  a 
practice  originate  or  have  utility.  Where  no  central 
authority  protects  families  or  individuals  in  their 
rights,  clan-sentiment  invests  private  revenge  with  all 
the  sacredness  of  a  religious  duty.  It  was  so  among  the 
Hebrews.  When  a  murder  had  been  committed,  the 
nearest  kinsman,  called  the  go'el,  had  to  carry  out 
the  duty  of  blood-revenge.  It  was  an  obligation  which 
the  tribal  god  was  believed  to  enforce  and  share,  espe- 
cially in  default  of  a  human  avenger.  The  blood  of 
Abel  cried  to  Jahveh  from  the  ground,  and  Cain  saw 
the  worst  consequences  of  his  banishment  in  the  fact 
that  in  a  foreign  land  there  was  neither  a  divine  nor  a 
human  go'el  to  avenge  him  if  he  was  slain.  In  other 
words,  the  tribal  god  himself  was  a  member  of  the  clan, 
and  as  such  became  the  avenger  who  declared  "Surely 
your  blood  .  .  .  will  I  require;  at  the  hand  of  every 
beast  will  I  require  it  and  at  the   hand   of   man."  ' 

1  Gen.  9:5. 


MORAL   BEGINNINGS  41 

Hence  throughout  their  history  the  Israelites  called 
Jahveh  their  go' el. 

It  may  be  remarked  that  from  one  point  of  view  this 
made  Jahveh  guardian  of  justice,  the  protector  of  the 
clansman's  life.  But  this  must  not  be  pressed  in  a 
modern  sense.  The  form  of  retributive  justice  which 
he  sanctioned  was  so  primitive  and  partisan  that  jus- 
tice really  was  outraged  under  its  own  name.  For 
under  the  ancient  view  of  the  family's  or  clan's  collec- 
tive responsibility  any  kinsman  of  the  guilty  man 
could  be  slain  in  expiation  of  a  murder.  Nor  were  the 
ends  of  justice  served  by  the  common  brutal  exaction 
of  excessive  revenge.  Tradition  put  into  Jahveh's  own 
mouth  the  typical  Bedawi  brag  that  "whosoever  slay- 
eth  Cain  vengeance  shall  be  taken  on  him  sevenfold,"  1 
and  in  the  Song  of  Lamech  has  been  preserved  the 
preposterous  boast  of  a  rival  clan  that 

"  If  Cain  shall  be  avenged  sevenfold, 
Truly  Lamech  seventy  and  sevenfold."  2 

There  can  be  no  doubt  whatever  that  the  practice  of 
blood-revenge  was  already  highly  developed  among 
the  Israelites  during  the  earliest  nomadic  period.  So 
ingrained  was  it,  in  habit  and  religion,  that  even  dur- 
ing the  period  of  the  monarchy  the  excesses  of  private 
revenge  were  checked  only  with  difficulty.  One  of  the 
earliest  means  adopted  has  come  down  to  us  in  the 
Lex  talionis,  "An  eye  for  an  eye  and  a  tooth  for  a 
tooth."  Applied  to  the  practice  of  blood-revenge,  this 
1  Gen.  4: 15.  2  Gen.  4:24. 


42  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

rule  prohibited  the  taking  of  more  than  one  life  for  a 
life.  The  appointment  of  asylums  for  the  manslayer 
was  another  palliative. 

3.  Nomadic  reactions  against  the  religion  and  practices  of  an 

agricultural  society 

The  most  striking  illustration  of  religious  nomadism 
in  revolt  against  agrarian  culture  is  furnished  by  the 
clan  of  the  Rechabites.  During  the  period  between 
Jehu  and  the  fall  of  Jerusalem  they  led  a  pastoral,  or 
half-nomadic,  life  in  Palestine.  The  conditions  of  life  in 
Palestine  were  so  different  from  those  of  the  desert 
that  even  pure  nomads,  who  chose  to  live  there,  had  to 
adopt  the  habits  of  half-nomads.  The  Rechabites, 
however,  had  preserved  and  invested  with  strict  re- 
ligious sanctions  the  most  characteristic  aversions  of 
desert  nomads.  These  aversions  are  recited  in  the 
thirty-fifth  chapter  of  Jeremiah.  The  Rechabites  had 
bound  themselves  not  to  engage  in  agriculture ;  not  to 
drink  wine ;  not  to  plant  or  to  own  a  vineyard ;  not  to 
build  houses,  but  to  dwell  in  tents. 

It  is  not  difficult  to  discover  the  sources  of  this  reac- 
tion. The  invading  nomad  Israelites  found  the  agri- 
cultural life  of  Canaan  under  the  patronage  of  local 
divinities  called  baals,  and  sometimes  generically,  the 
Baal.  The  Rechabites  were  of  the  Kenites,  whom 
Hebrew  tradition  counts  among  the  original  worship- 
pers of  Jahveh.  What  could  be  more  natural  than  that 
they  should  identify  their  devotion  to  Jahvism  with 


MORAL   BEGINNINGS  43 

adherence  to  the  simple  life  and  manners  of  the  desert. 
The  complex  agricultural  life  of  Canaan  stood  un- 
der the  sanction  of  rival  divinities  and,  therefore,  its 
characteristic  features  and  products  were  declared 
taboo  among  the  strictest  of  the  nomad  groups. 

Since  the  bloody  rebellion  under  Jehu  had  the  sup- 
port of  the  reputed  founder  of  the  religious  order  of  the 
Rechabites,  there  is  good  reason  to  think  that  it  was  a 
reaction  against  Canaanite  civilization  which  brought 
the  dynasty  of  Jehu  into  power.  Besides  the  Recha- 
bites, the  Nazirite  devotees  were  representatives  of 
nomadic  ideals,  for  like  the  former  they  abstained 
from  the  use  of  wine.  Their  vows,  it  seems,  were  as- 
sumed for  limited  periods  only,  during  which  their  hair 
had  to  remain  unshorn.  There  is  reason  to  think  that 
some  of  the  earlier  prophets,  like  Elijah,  Elisha,  and 
Amos,  also  were  anticultural  campaigners  for  the 
simpler  and  purer  Jahvism  of  nomadic  times.  Amos, 
for  instance,  inveighs  against  houses  of  hewn  stone, 
and  the  giving  of  wine  to  Nazirites. 

The  pre-exilic  prophets  looked  back  upon  the  desert 
period  of  Israel's  religion  as  the  golden  age  of  happiness 
and  high  ideals,  destined  to  return  once  more  at  the 
end  of  days.  "I  remember  concerning  thee,"  writes 
Jeremiah,  "  the  affection  of  thy  youth,  the  love  of  thy 
bridal  days,  when  thou  didst  follow  me  through  un- 
sown land."  And  Hosea  makes  Jahveh  say:  "I  will 
allure  her  and  lead  her  into  the  desert  [again]  and 
speak  to  her  heart  .  .  .  that  she  may  become  respon- 


44  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

sive  there  as  in  the  days  of  her  youth."  *  These  proph- 
ets deplored  the  change  which  had  come  over  the  re- 
ligion of  Israel  since  their  fathers  had  exchanged  the 
desert  for  the  sown. 

A  trace  of  nomadic  reaction  is  perceptible  even  in 
Deuteronomy.  The  Deuteronomists'  watchword,  im- 
plied in  every  part  of  their  work  as  clearly  as  if  they 
had  stated  it,  is  "Back  to  the  religion  of  Moses!"  For 
this  reason  they  made  Moses  the  representative  of 
prophetic,  and  Aaron  of  priestly,  ideals.  From  the 
days  of  Amos  onward  the  prophets  had  accused  the 
priests  at  Israelite  sanctuaries  of  having  appropriated 
the  Canaanite  cultus  for  the  worship  of  Jahveh.  In 
blaming  Aaron  for  making  a  bull-image  ("golden 
calf")  as  a  likeness  of  Jahveh,  and  proclaiming  a  sac- 
rificial feast  to  him  in  connection  with  its  worship, 
they  were  charging  the  Hebrew  priesthood  of  their 
time,  the  Aaronites,  with  complicity  in  the  evils  that 
were  to  be  abolished.  "Jahveh  was  very  angry  with 
Aaron  to  destroy  him:  and  I  [Moses]  prayed  for 
Aaron."  2 

It  remains  now  to  gather  up  the  loose  ends  of  this 
discussion,  to  show  the  effect  of  these  early  institu- 
tions and  customs  in  the  direction  which  they  gave  to 
the  development  of  morals.  Since  Jahveh  was  held  to 
be  the  guardian  of  customary  morality  the  moral  as- 
pects of  the  idea  of  God  are  involved  too.  There  were 
few  if  any  customs  of  the  Hebrews'  tribal  and  family 

1  Jer.  2:2,  and  Hos.  2:14,  15.  2  Dt.  9:20,  21;  cf.  Ex.  32:1-8. 


MORAL   BEGINNINGS  45 

life,  as  the  Old  Testament  shows,  which  they  did  not 
invest  with  divine  sanctions.  Since  it  is  not  to  be  sup- 
posed for  a  moment  that  a  people  will  put  a  "Thus 
saith  the  Lord"  behind  customs  which  the  contempo- 
rary social  conscience  does  not  approve,  an  appraisal 
of  such  sanctions  is  an  appraisal  of  the  culture  of  the 
time.  Religion  and  civilization  stand  and  fall  together 
in  our  judgment  of  the  practices  and  beliefs  of  society. 

We  have  pointed  out  one  or  two  by-products  of  an- 
cestor cult.  There  are  many  others.  Let  us  consider 
for  a  moment  the  privileges  of  the  first-born.  They 
were  grounded  in  the  family  religion  and  family  moral- 
ity. But  they  had  in  them  elements  of  injustice  which, 
as  time  went  on,  no  divine  sanctions  could  hide.  The 
first-born  son  was,  next  to  the  father,  the  foremost 
bearer  of  the  obligations  of  ancestor  cult,  which  by  its 
very  nature  was  restricted  to  the  family.  The  very 
existence  of  the  family  was  believed  to  depend  upon 
the  proper  discharge  of  these  obligations.  In  this  fact 
were  founded  the  first-born's  superior  rights  of  inheri- 
tance, and  they  continued  to  be  his,  without  a  chal- 
lenge of  their  justice,  long  after  their  attendant  obliga- 
tions and  origin  had  been  forgotten.  We  are  dealing 
with  the  products  of  a  communal  conception  of  re- 
ligion, and  they  must  be  judged  from  the  point  of  view 
of  communal  ethics  and  psychology. 

From  the  same  level  of  ideas  arose  the  ancient 
belief  in  the  sanctity  of  the  parent  and  in  the  great 
potency  of  parental  curses  and  blessings.   They  had 


46  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

behind  them  the  mysterious  power  which  the  endorse- 
ment of  the  clan-deity  could  give.  The  stories  of  Noah 
and  his  sons,  and  of  Jacob  and  Esau,  make  dramatic 
capital  of  this  sinister  power  of  the  father,  as  the  re- 
ligious head  of  the  family,  to  influence  the  destiny  of 
his  offspring  by  his  curses  and  his  blessings.  The  unique 
authority  of  the  father  and  the  solidarity  of  the  family 
are  presupposed  in  such  beliefs. 

From  a  sense  of  the  unity  of  that  life  which  was  be- 
lieved to  animate  all  the  members  of  a  family  sprang 
the  idea  of  the  collective  responsibility  of  the  kinship 
group.  The  feeling  of  solidarity  bred  within  the  an- 
cient family,  as  the  primary  unit  of  human  society, 
gradually  transcended  actual,  though  not  theoretical, 
kinship  until,  with  the  growing  complexity  of  social 
organization,  it  included  successively  the  clan,  the 
tribe,  and  finally  the  nation.  Religion  based  upon 
such  a  concept  of  kinship  necessarily  develops  a  type 
of  social  morality  peculiar  to  itself.  Injury,  guilt,  or 
innocence,  are  not  matters  of  the  individual,  but  of  the 
group.  "Our  blood  has  been  shed"  was  the  Arab's 
mode  of  referring  to  the  murder  of  a  tribesman.  It  was 
a  tribal  injury  and  involved  tribal  responsibility,  for 
the  murder  rested  not  upon  the  murderer  alone  but 
upon  his  entire  family,  or  clan,  and  might  be  avenged 
in  the  persons  of  any  of  its  members.  Unless  atoned 
for  by  the  reprisals  of  the  blood-avenger,  the  go' el,  such 
blood-guiltiness  was  inherited  by  the  children  and  the 
children's  children.    In  other  words  it  remained  upon 


MORAL  BEGINNINGS  47 

the  clan  even  though  there  was  a  complete  change  of 
its  constituent  individuals.  It  was  this  law  of  blood- 
revenge,  and  its  satisfaction,  which  furnished  the  most 
striking  illustration  of  the  guilt  of  the  fathers  being 
visited  upon  the  children.  Among  modern  Bedawin,  as 
we  have  noted,  such  an  inheritance  descends  to  the 
fifth  generation. 

This  moral  economy  of  their  tribal  life  was  trans- 
ferred by  the  ancient  Hebrews,  as  by  members  of  simi- 
lar primitive  societies,  to  their  theology.  The  sin  of 
one  member  of  the  clan,  or  tribe,  spread  as  by  infec- 
tion to  the  whole,  and  the  punishment  inflicted  must 
be  suffered  by  representative  individuals,  or  by  all. 
And  one  must  be  careful  not  to  import  the  modern  idea 
of  sin  into  this  period.  More  often  than  not  the  of- 
fence consisted  in  the  breaking  of  some  taboo  like  that 
of  the  tree  in  the  garden  of  Eden;  in  the  handling  of 
some  "holy"  or  "unclean"  thing,  or  in  failure  to  ob- 
serve some  ritual  requirement  —  all  matters  that  have 
vanished  from  the  modern  idea  of  sin.  Guilt  thus  in- 
curred was  believed,  in  the  eyes  of  God,  also,  to  de- 
scend from  generation  to  generation.  Therefore  the 
Hebrew  sage  scrupled  not  to  make  Jahveh  speak  of 
"  visiting  the  iniquity  of  the  fathers  upon  the  chil- 
dren, and  upon  the  children's  children."  1 

To  a  society  whose  institutions  were  based  upon  the 
supposed  solidarity  of  kinship  groups,  whether  large  or 
small,  this  doctrine  of  collective  guilt  and  punishment 

1  Ex.  34:7. 


48  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

was  as  natural  and  inevitable  as  it  seems  shocking  to 
the  moral  feeling  of  civilized  communities  of  our  day. 
Having  once  found  lodgment  in  religious  thought,  re- 
ligious conservatism  kept  it  there  as  a  principle  of 
God's  retributive  justice  even  after  Deuteronomy  had 
eliminated  it  from  the  Hebrew  civil  code  by  providing 
that  the  fathers  were  not  to  be  put  to  death  for  the 
children,  nor  the  children  for  the  fathers.1  The  incon- 
gruity of  making  God  condemn  as  unjust  in  their  con- 
duct what  they  believed  he  himself  continued  to  do, 
did  not  seem  to  trouble  Hebrew  thinkers  until  the 
time  of  Ezekiel. 

The  character  of  the  marriage  relation,  the  status  of 
women,  and  the  treatment  of  slaves,  where  the  institu- 
tion of  slavery  exists,  are  other  indices  of  a  people's 
moral  and  cultural  advancement.  The  subject  of  slav- 
ery calls  for  detailed  discussion  in  another  connection. 
We  can  note  here  only  the  fact  that  slavery  existed 
among  the  Hebrews  from  the  earliest  period,  and  was 
invested  with  divine  sanctions  in  the  Mosaic  Law. 
What  does  concern  us  here  is  the  moral  status  of  a 
family  which  included  female  slaves  as  part  of  the 
harem. 

The  marriage  relation  among  the  Hebrews  was  es- 
tablished by  the  purchase  of  a  wife.  There  was  no  be- 
trothal in  the  modern  sense.  The  English  version  of 
the  Old  Testament  tries  to  cover  with  this  word  the 
period  between  the  payment  of  the  mohar,  or  purchase 

1  Dt.  24: 16. 


MORAL  BEGINNINGS  49 

price,  to  the  father,  and  the  transfer  of  the  daughter  to 
the  husband's  abode.  Sometimes,  as  in  the  case  of 
Leah  and  Rachel,  the  equivalent  of  the  price  was  paid 
in  work.  In  consequence  of  the  purchase,  a  wife  was 
regarded  as  part  of  a  man's  property,  and  was  enum- 
erated among  his  possessions  with  slaves  and  domes- 
tic animals. 

Marriage  by  purchase  was  a  very  ancient  Semitic 
institution.  It  underlies  some  of  the  family  regulations 
in  the  Code  of  Hammurabi  twenty-two  centuries  be- 
fore the  Christian  era.  But  in  some  important  respects 
the  Babylonian  family  stood  upon  a  higher  level  than 
that  of  Israel.  The  Babylonian  husband's  power  over 
his  wife  as  his  property  had  been  checked  by  the  state, 
and  her  social  and  economic  status  was  consequently 
more  assured.  For  instance,  a  husband's  reasons  for 
desiring  to  divorce  his  wife  had  to  be  well  founded. 
Otherwise  the  step  involved  for  him  the  payment  to 
her  of  considerable  indemnity,  and  the  children  re- 
mained with  her.  Among  the  Hebrews  divorce  was 
surprisingly  easy,  and  the  disadvantages  appear  to 
have  been  wholly  borne  by  the  woman.  Her  father, 
uncles,  and  brothers  were  her  only  protection  against 
her  husband.  Burkhardt's  account  of  the  easy  and 
frequent  divorces  among  Bedawin  of  the  desert  fur- 
nishes another  point  of  resemblance  between  customs 
of  desert  nomads  and  those  of  ancient  Israel. 

Characteristic  of  the  more  advanced  culture  of 
Babylon  is  the  important  fact  that  the  Code  of  Ham- 


50  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

murabi  allows  a  man  to  have  only  one  wife.1  Chronic 
illness  or  childlessness  are  the  only  circumstances  un- 
der which  a  secondary  wife  is  permitted.  Even  these 
exceptions  prove  adherence  to  the  monogamic  princi- 
ple, since  the  rights  of  the  first  wife  are  safeguarded, 
and  she  takes  precedence  over  the  second  wife.  But  in 
ancient  Israel  monogamy,  though  sometimes  assumed 
as  an  ideal,  was  neither  a  civil  nor  a  religious  require- 
ment. On  the  contrary  polygamy  was  so  normal  and 
habitual  that  the  Talmudists  attempted  to  regulate  it 
by  prescribing  a  limit  of  four  wives  for  the  average 
Jew,  and  eighteen  for  a  king.  During  the  earlier  period, 
it  seems,  the  number  of  a  man's  wives  was  limited  only 
by  his  ability  to  buy  and  support  them.  This  may  ex- 
plain why  bigamy,  in  the  Old  Testament,  appears  to 
have  been  the  normal  practice  among  half-nomads  and 
farmers.  The  prohibition  of  the  right  of  divorce  by  the 
Mosaic  Law  under  special  circumstances,  becomes  sig- 
nificant in  the  light  of  these  facts.  Does  it  mean  that 
under  ordinary  circumstances  divorce  might  be  em- 
ployed to  preserve  the  balance  between  a  man's  ability 
to  support  and  his  desire  for  new  additions  to  his 
harem?  In  any  case  monogamy  did  not  come  to  full 
recognition  among  the  Jews  until  the  ninth  century 
A.D.,  and  then  under  Christian  influences  emanating 
from  Spain.2 

Concubinage  was  an  institution  that  existed  among 

1  Cf.  Cook,  The  Laws  of  Moses  and  the  Code  of  Hammurabi  (1903), 
chap.  v. 

2  Cf.  RGG,  Ehe  und  Familie,  Steffen. 


MORAL  BEGINNINGS  51 

the  Hebrews  as  well  as  among  neighboring  Semites. 
It  was  common  enough  to  require  regulation  by  cus- 
tomary law,  and  was  obviously  a  heavy  drag  upon 
family  morality.  A  group  of  such  regulations  has  been 
preserved  in  the  book  of  Exodus:  "If  a  man  [an  Is- 
raelite] sell  his  daughter  as  a  bondwoman,  she  shall  not 
be  set  free  [in  the  seventh  year]  as  the  bondmen  are. 
If  she  please  not  her  master  after  he  hath  known  her, 
he  may  allow  her  to  be  redeemed;  but  into  a  strange 
family  he  shall  not  have  the  right  to  sell  her,  when  he 
hath  dealt  deceitfully  with  her.  If,  however,  he  turn 
her  over  to  his  son  he  shall  deal  with  her  according  to 
the  rights  of  daughters.  If  he  take  [still]  another  [con- 
cubine, and  keep  the  former]  he  shall  not  diminish  her 
portion  of  flesh,  her  raiment,  and  her  duty  of  marriage. 
And  if  he  do  not  any  of  these  three  things  for  her,  then 
shall  she  go  free  for  nothing,  without  indemnity."  1 

This  passage  shows  that  a  Hebrew  father  had  the 
legal  right  to  sell  his  daughter  as  a  slave,  and  that 
female  slaves  were  customarily  taken  as  concubines  by 
their  masters.  This  afforded  opportunities  to  libidi- 
nous creditors  which  early  Hebrew  society  must  have 
found  it  difficult  to  tolerate.  The  fact  that  these  regu- 
lations temporize  with  the  evil  shows  how  well  estab- 
lished the  practice  was  among  those  who  exercised 
control  over  custom.    If  a  purchaser  tired  of  a  young 

1  Ex.  21:  7-11  (E).  The  English  rendering,  even  of  the  R.V.,  is  inac- 
curate; cf.  Holzinger's  rendering  in  HSAT.  The  portion  of  flesh  (vs. 
10)  refers  to  the  meat  distributed  on  festal  occasions  at  the  sacrificial 
feasts  (I  Sam.  1:4-5). 


52  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

woman  he  might  afterwards,  on  the  authority  of  the 
law,  allow  her  to  be  redeemed,  probably  by  taking 
back  a  part  of  the  purchase  money,  or  he  could  turn 
her  over  to  his  son.  If  he  did  not  fulfil  these  condi- 
tions, and  yet  wished  to  take  another  concubine,  he 
had  to  let  the  first  one  go  free  rather  than  shorten  her 
in  her  rights  of  maintenance. 

If  a  man  other  than  her  master  had  intercourse  with 
a  concubine  it  was  apparently  not  considered  adultery, 
but  a  breach  of  property  rights.  The  case  is  stated 
thus  in  the  Law  of  Holiness  [H] :  "  If  a  man  have  carnal 
intercourse  with  a  woman  who  is  a  slave,  betrothed  to 
another  man  [her  master],  but  who  was  not  at  all  re- 
deemed nor  given  her  freedom,  a  punishment  shall  be 
imposed,  but  they  shall  not  be  put  to  death,  because 
she  was  not  free."  1  The  odalisk  at  least  could  hope 
for  humaner  treatment  than  a  wife  when  caught. 

We  cannot  deal  here  with  the  origin  of  this  wretched 
by-product  of  Semitic  life.  The  fact  that  the  foreign 
word  pilegesh  is  used  in  Hebrew,  besides  the  native 
word  for  concubine,  'amah,  shows  that  girls  were  im- 
ported from  Phoenicia  to  meet  a  demand  that  exceeded 
the  native  supply.  Since  the  institution  was  permitted 
and  regulated  in  the  Old  Testament  with  a  "Jahveh 
said  unto  Moses,"  early  Christianity,  bound  by  its 
literal  interpretation  of  Scripture,  found  it  difficult  to 

1  Lev.  19:20.  Priestly  redactors  of  a  later  period  added  two  verses 
which  established  their  claim  to  a  ram  in  the  form  of  a  trespass-offering, 
by  means  of  which  the  offender  was  absolved  from  guilt.  Cf.  Lev.  19:20- 
21,  and  Ezek.  44:29. 


MORAL  BEGINNINGS  53 

abolish  it.  Concubinage  was  actually  sanctioned  by 
the  Synod  of  Toledo  in  400  a.d.,  and  was  not  actively 
suppressed  as  social  impurity  until  the  fifth  Lateran 
Council  in  15 16. 

The  institution  of  slavery  among  the  Hebrews  will 
be  discussed  under  the  "Social  Ethics  of  Deuteron- 
omy." It  appears  to  have  existed  among  them  from 
the  earliest  times  and  Jahveh's  approval  is  naively  ex- 
tended to  it  as  to  other  social  institutions  of  their 
time.  It  scarcely  is  necessary  to  call  attention  to  the 
fact  that  the  decalogue  prohibits  neither  polygamy 
nor  slavery  although  they  both  were  practised  among 
the  Hebrews  at  the  time  when  the  ten  commandments 
are  supposed  to  have  been  promulgated.  On  the  theory 
of  morality  through  revelation  by  commands  from  the 
blue,  rather  than  through  religious  experience,  it  will 
be  difficult  to  account  for  the  omission  of  two  com- 
mandments whose  moral  effect  would  have  been 
greater  than  that  of  most  of  the  prohibitions  of  the 
decalogue. 


CHAPTER   III 

MORAL    CHARACTER   OF   JAHVEH   AND    HIS    CLIENTS 
IN   THE   EARLY   LITERATURE 

In  the  previous  chapter  we  utilized  the  JE  tradi- 
tions as  indirect  sources  of  information  about  the  re- 
ligion of  Israel  as  it  was  before  the  conquest  of  Canaan 
and  just  after.  We  shall  now  use  them  as  direct  sources 
for  the  period  which  extends  from  the  time  of  Deborah 
to  that  of  Amos,  from  1200  to  750  B.C.  (cf.  Chronology, 
p.  xxii).  We  shall  call  this  the  pre-prophetic  or  Ca- 
naanite  period  of  Israel's  religion.1  Even  within  this 
period  of  approximately  five  hundred  years  our  liter- 
ary data  are  not  as  full  as  we  could  wish.  They  are 
most  satisfactory  for  the  eighth  and  ninth  centuries; 
less  so  for  the  tenth  and  eleventh.  The  traditions 
which  pertain  to  the  period  from  1200  to  1000  B.C. 
have  come  down  to  us  in  the  form  of  twice-used  build- 
ing-stones. Some,  in  fact,  may  have  a  more  compli- 
cated history  than  that,  and  they  often  fill  a  place  in 
the  new  literary  structure  for  which  they  were  not 
originally  intended. 

The  length  of  the  period  with  which  we  are  dealing 
suggests  the  probability  of  considerable  change.  But 
before  the   political   unification  of  the  tribes  under 

1  The  term  "pre-prophetic"  is  not  strictly  accurate,  since  it  does  not 
refer  to  a  time  when  there  were  no  Hebrew  prophets,  but  to  the  time  be- 
fore Amos,  the  first  prophet  whose  writings  survive. 


MORAL  CHARACTER  OF  JAHVEH    55 

David  and  Solomon,  changes  in  the  popular  concep- 
tion of  God,  duty,  and  religion  probably  were  local, 
slow,  and  inconsiderable.  Besides,  our  sources  for  the 
earlier  period  are  too  indirect  and  scanty  to  warrant 
separate  treatment.  A  better  view  of  the  religious 
situation  is  obtained  by  treating  the  period  in  question 
as  a  whole,  remembering  that  our  sources  belong 
chiefly  to  the  ninth  and  eighth  centuries.  They  con- 
sist of  the  J  and  E  traditions  embedded  in  Genesis, 
Exodus,  Numbers,  and  Joshua;  the  hero  and  prophet 
stories  in  the  Books  of  Judges  and  of  Samuel;  and  the 
oldest  elements  in  the  Books  of  Kings. 

We  noted  in  the  preceding  chapter  that  the  religion 
of  the  ancient  Semite  was  a  part  of  his  custom.  The 
Israelites  were  Semites  and  religion  was  a  part,  also,  of 
their  custom;  hence  the  interdependence  of  religious 
ideas  and  social  custom  which  we  shall  have  constant 
occasion  to  observe  in  our  study  of  Israel's  religion. 
One  would  naturally  suppose  that  under  these  circum- 
stances their  conception  of  God  would  be  built  up  out 
of  the  materials  which  their  practical  experience  sup- 
plied. 

Their  conception  of  man  at  his  best  was  that  of  a 
sheik,  or  of  a  king,  whose  two  chief  functions  were  to 
dispense  justice  and  to  fight  their  battles.1  But  even 
by  the  standards  of  their  own  time  the  best  of  their 
chieftains  and  kings  were  irascible,  unjust,  selfish,  and 
barbarous.    It  is  scarcely  to  be  expected,  therefore, 

1  I  Sam.  8:20. 


56  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

that  a  conception  of  God  which  grew  out  of  experience 
with  such  leaders  in  an  unreflecting  age  could  be  in  all 
respects  admirable.  We  shall  see  that  the  limitations 
and  faults  of  Jahveh's  prototypes  frequently  reappear 
in  his  character  as  we  find  it  delineated  in  the  early 
traditions. 

I  The  religion  of  the  pre-prophetic  period  is  dominated 
by  two  correlate  ideas:  (i)  that  Jahveh  is  the  God  of 
Palestine  only,  being  more  or  less  localized  at  sanctua- 
ries within  its  borders,  and  consequently  an  intramun- 
dane  deity;  (2)  that  he  was  the  God  of  Israel  alone,  be- 
ing concerned  solely  about  the  welfare  of  his  Israelite 
worshippers,  and  the  retention  of  their  exclusive  hom- 
age. He  is,  therefore,  a  national  deity  —  an  ardent 
partisan  on  behalf  of  his  clients  when  they  are  loyal, 
and  destructively  resentful  when  they  pay  homage  to 
rival  deities.  Within  the  boundaries  established  by 
these  two  controlling  ideas  practically  the  entire  re- 
ligious thought  of  the  period  moves. 

The  localization  of  deities  at  Semitic  sanctuaries  is 
a  matter  well  known.  Intercourse  between  the  deity 
and  his  worshippers  was  assumed  to  be  subject  to 
physical  conditions  of  a  definite  kind.  The  worshipper 
must  go  to  the  sanctuary  in  order  to  "  appear  before 
Jahveh."  l  In  other  words,  God  was  to  the  early  He- 
brew a  part  of  the  natural  world  in  which  he  was  living. 
One  of  the  incidental  results  of  this  physical  concep- 
tion of  the  deity  was  a  naive  popular  belief  that  a  dif- 

1  I  Sam.  1: 19,  22. 


MORAL  CHARACTER  OF  JAHVEH    57 

ferent  Jahveh  resided  at  each  of  the  many  sanctuaries. 
A  full  discussion  of  this  psychological  phenomenon 
will  be  found  in  a  separate  chapter. 

We  are  more  particularly  concerned  at  this  point 
with  the  fact  that  the  Hebrews,  during  the  cruder 
stages  of  the  national-god  period  of  their  religion,  be- 
lieved Jahveh's  presence  and  power  to  be  limited  to  the 
territory  inhabited  by  the  Israelites.  "Jahveh  hath 
anointed  thee  to  be  prince  over  his  inheritance"  said 
Samuel  to  Saul  when  he  anointed  him  king.  It  is  not 
difficult  to  see  that  this  conception  of  "Jahveh's  in- 
heritance" has  been  modelled  on  the  idea  of  a  king  and 
his  domain. 

This  circumstance  furnishes  an  explanation  of  what 
at  first  sight  would  seem  to  be  incidents  and  beliefs  in- 
consistent with  the  idea  of  a  Jahveh  who  is  confined  to 
Palestine.  A  king's  power  does  not  properly  extend 
beyond  the  boundaries  of  his  kingdom.  But  if  his 
army  invades  foreign  territory,  or  if  persons  or  objects 
representative  of  his  rule  penetrate  into  adjacent  re- 
gions, the  ancient  story-teller  immediately  enlarges 
the  sphere  of  his  influence  and  activity.  Descriptions 
of  Jahveh's  activity  exhibit  analogous  treatment. 
Abraham  and  Moses  in  Egypt,  the  sacred  ark  among 
the  Philistines,  are  accompanied  by  manifestations  of 
his  power.  But  even  under  these  circumstances  it  is 
usually  mediated  physically  by  a  magic  wand,  a  sacred 
chest,  or  by  the  person  of  the  "prophet "  who  is  endued 
with  mysterious  power  by  the  deity.1 

1  Gen.  20:7. 


58  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

The  appearance  of  Jahveh  at  the  tower  of  Babel,  and 
his  extra- Palestinian  activity  in  the  narratives  of  the 
Garden  of  Eden  and  of  the  Flood,  may  be  regarded  as 
due  primarily  to  the  domestication  in  Hebrew  tradition 
of  stories  in  which  other  deities  were  originally  the 
actors.  This,  to  cite  an  example,  is  the  way  in  which 
Jahveh  became  the  subduer  of  the  sea-dragon,  a  ca- 
pacity in  which  he  displaced  the  Babylonian  god  Mar- 
duk.1  As  additional  instances  might  be  mentioned 
two  legends,  in  one  of  which  Jahveh  wrestles  with 
Jacob  at  the  ford  of  the  Jabbok,  and  in  the  other  at- 
tempts to  slay  Moses  at  a  lodging-place  on  his  way  to 
Egypt.  In  both  stories  Jahveh  has  undoubtedly  taken 
the  place  of  local  night-demons. 

It  will  readily  be  seen  that  when  Jahveh  was  made 
the  hero  of  exploits  in  which  originally  other  divinities 
figured,  it  was  not  always  possible  to  change  the  scene 
of  action  to  Jahveh's  own  domain,  the  land  of  Pales- 
tine. We  may  assume,  too,  that  some  transfers  were 
made  by  compilers  to  whom  Jahveh  was  already  a 
universal  God,  and  who,  therefore,  did  not  feel  the 
need  of  accounting  for  his  exercise  of  power  in  foreign 
territory.  Earlier  writers  had  different  ideas  upon  this 
subject,  for  one  records  that  when  the  Israelites  were 
besieging  a  Moabite  city,  and  the  Moabite  king  sacri- 
ficed his  eldest  son,  his  god  Chemosh  brought  calamity 
upon  the  Israelites,  so  that  they  returned  to  their  own 
land.    It  was  because  Chemosh  was  more  powerful  in 

1  Cf.  Is.  27:1;  51:9,  etc. 


MORAL  CHARACTER  OF  JAHVEH    59 

Moab  than  Jahveh  that  "there  came  great  wrath  upon 
Israel."  » 

In  attempting  to  explain  what  are  clearly  incon- 
gruous elements  in  the  early  Hebrew  conception  of 
Jahveh  it  is  important  not  to  overlook  the  probability 
that  we  may  be  dealing  with  mingled  products  of  at 
least  two  widely  different  religious  developments.  If 
the  one  went  back  to  nomadic  origins,  and  was  in  the 
main  Hebraic,  the  other  probably  rested  upon  agri- 
cultural origins  and  was  predominantly  Canaanite. 
Among  resulting  differences  in  point  of  view  may  have 
to  be  reckoned,  on  the  one  hand,  those  passages  which 
assume  Jahveh's  abode  to  be  in  heaven,  and  on  the 
other,  those  which  assume  that  he  abides  upon  the 
earth.2 

Israel's  early  connections  with  Arabia  and  its  moon 
religion,  the  investment  of  Jahveh  with  the  attributes 
of  a  storm-god  and  mountain-god,  and  the  disposition 
of  nomadic  peoples  to  detach  their  deity  from  the  soil, 
favored  the  view  that  Jahveh  was  celestial  rather  than 
terrestrial.  Hence  it  is  said  that  he  came  "  down  "  upon 
Sinai,3  and  the  "angel"  of  Jahveh  spoke  "from 
heaven."  4  It  should  be  remarked,  however,  that  these 

1  II  Kings  3:27. 

2  In  the  present  context  Jahveh's  declaration,  "  I  will  go  down  "  (Gen. 
18:21),  must  refer  to  the  descent  from  the  mountains  of  Judahto  Sodom. 
In  Gen.  19:24,  "from  heaven"  is  a  superfluous  gloss  (Kautzsch).  It  is  a 
question  whether  in  Solomon's  prayer  (1  Kings  S:  22  Jf.)  the  references  to 
heaven  may  not  also  be  late  editorial  glosses  (Kamphausen,  HSAT). 

3  Ex.  19:11,20  (JE);34:5  (J);  24: 10  (J). 

4  Gen.  21: 17  (E);  22: 11,  15  (E).  In  these  passages  the  "angel"prob- 
ably  has  been  substituted  for  Jahveh  himself. 


60  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

distinctions  can  easily  be  pressed  too  far,  for  it  would, 
of  course,  be  a  serious  mistake  to  invest  the  old  He- 
brew notions  of  heaven  and  earth  with  our  modern 
philosophical  and  theological  connotations.  Jahveh 
descends  upon  Sinai  from  a  cloud,  which  shows  that 
the  "heaven"  of  these  early  writers  still  is  a  part  of 
their  physical  world.  A  heaven  that  is  in  danger  of 
being  invaded  from  a  building,  as  in  the  tower  of  Babel 
story,  or  can  be  reached  by  a  ladder,  even  in  a  dream, 
is  scarcely  above  the  imagination  of  a  child.  But  the 
narrators  of  these  traditions  believed  Jahveh  to  be  at 
least  a  supra-terrestrial  being,  and  their  views  main- 
tained themselves  with  more  or  less  tenacity  until  he 
was  universalized  by  the  prophets  and  a  vaster  heaven 
became  his  proper  abode  in  popular  thought. 

The  localization  of  Jahveh  within  the  world  receives 
further  illustration  from  Hebrew  beliefs  about  the  abid- 
ing-place of  the  dead.  These  beliefs  also  furnish  addi- 
tional evidence  of  a  mixture  of  contradictory  concep- 
tions. According  to  the  ancient  family  religion  of  the 
Israelites  the  dead  had  their  abode  within  the  ances- 
tral tomb  and  received  offerings  there.  For  the  com- 
fort of  the  deceased  after  death  it  was  very  important, 
therefore,  that  his  body  should  be  "gathered  unto  his 
fathers." 

But  they  also  believed  in  a  common  abiding-place 
of  all  the  dead  —  the  underworld  called  Sheol.  Reli- 
gions in  their  earlier  stages  attach  little  importance 
to  the  logical  coherence  of  beliefs.  This  may  account 


MORAL  CHARACTER  OF  JAHVEH    61 

for  the  fact  that  the  obvious  contradictoriness  of  the 
two  views  does  not  seem  to  have  troubled  the  Hebrew 
writers.  But  they  instinctively  refrained  from  repre- 
senting Jahveh  as  interfering  directly  with  Sheol.  To 
chastise  enemies  who  have  taken  refuge  in  the  realm 
of  the  dead  he  first  snatches  them  thence.1  Neither 
worship  nor  praise  are  offered  to  him  there,2  presum- 
ably because  the  dead  were  themselves  regarded  as 
divinities  {elohim),  and  consequently  as  rivals. 

In  short,  there  is  reason  to  think  that  the  belief  in 
Sheol  was  adopted  into  Hebrew  religion  from  else- 
where, and  always  formed  a  somewhat  indigestible 
lump  in  the  mass  of  earlier  beliefs.  If  the  story  of  the 
fall  of  Adam  and  Eve  is  meant  to  represent  death  as  a 
consequence  of  sin,  as  something  unintended  in  the 
plan  of  God,  how  could  the  Old  Testament  writers 
suppose  that  God  created  Sheol  from  the  beginning 
as  a  place  for  the  reception  of  the  dead?  Curiously 
enough  Sheol  is  never  mentioned  among  the  creations 
of  God  either  in  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis  or  in  IV 
Esdras  6.  Yet  a  creationist  3  had  no  choice  but  to 
make  God  responsible  also  for  Sheol.  It  certainly 
looks  as  if  Sheol,  which  bears  striking  resemblances  to 
the  Babylonian  Aralu,  were  something  imported  into 
Israel's  religion.  This,  and  the  fact  that  Sheol  was  the 
domain  of  other  elohim,  would  account  for  the  disin- 

1  Am.  9:  2.  2  Ps.  6:5;  Is.  38:18,  19. 

3  The  rabbis  of  the  Middle  Ages  referred  the  creation  of  Sheol  to  the 
second  day  because  the  approving  formula,  "and  he  saw  that  it  was 
good,"  is  omitted  for  that  day! 


62  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

clination  of  Hebrew  writers  to  bring  Jahveh  into  rela- 
tion to  it. 

Leaving  now  these  general  considerations  of  Jah- 
veh's  within-the-world  character,  let  us  turn  to  more 
specific  phases  of  the  subject.  The  fact  that  Jahveh 
and  his  worship  were  popularly  believed  to  be  insepa- 
rable from  Palestine  may  be  illustrated  by  a  number 
of  interesting  passages.  One  Old  Testament  writer 
speaks  of  the  sacred  ark,  with  which  he  associates  the 
presence  of  Jahveh,  as  going  up  "  by  the  way  of  its  own 
border."1  Cain  complains,  "Behold  thou  hast  driven 
me  out  this  day  from  the  face  of  the  ground  [i.e.,  Pal- 
estine]: and  from  thy  face  shall  I  be  hid  [i.e.,  deprived 
of  thy  care  and  protection]."  2  The  same  presupposi- 
tions underlie  the  complaint  of  David:  "They  have 
driven  me  out  this  day  that  I  should  not  cleave  unto 
the  inheritance  of  Jahveh,  saying  Go  serve  other  gods. 
Now,  therefore,  let  not  my  blood  fall  to  the  earth  away 
from  the  presence  of  Jahveh."  3  Expulsion  from  Pal- 
estine, "the  inheritance  of  Jahveh,"  involves  separa- 
tion from  him  and  his  worship.  To  enjoy  a  measure  of 
protection  in  a  foreign  land  the  fugitive  had  to  adopt 
the  religion  of  the  land  and  people  that  sheltered  him. 
What  Ruth  the  Moabitess  says  to  her  mother-in-law 
—  "thy  people  shall  be  my  people,  and  thy  god  my 
god"  —  is  according  to  ancient  views  an  inevitable 
consequence  of  her  determination  to  exchange  her  na- 
tive land  for  the  land  of  Judah.  These  conceptions,  of 

1  I  Sam.  6:  9.  [  2  Gen.  4:14  (J).  *  I  Sam.  26: 19,  20. 


MORAL  CHARACTER  OF  JAHVEH    63 

course,  were  not  peculiar  to  the  Hebrews,  but  were 
shared  by  their  Semitic  neighbors.  Thus  one  reads 
that  Naaman,  desirous  of  establishing  a  private  cultus 
of  Jahveh  at  his  home  in  Syria,  asks  permission  to  take 
along  "two  mules'  burden  of  earth."1  He  assumes 
that  Jahveh  cannot  be  worshipped  in  a  foreign  land 
unless  the  altar  stands  upon  soil  brought  from  Pales- 
tine. Syrian  soil  would  be  considered  polluted,  from 
the  point  of  view  of  Jahveh's  worshippers,  by  the 
presence  and  ownership  of  other  deities.  Equally  sug- 
gestive is  the  case  of  the  colonists  deported  by  the 
Assyrians  and  settled  around  Samaria.  Being  har- 
assed by  wild  beasts  they  ascribe  their  plight  to  the 
fact  that  "they  know  not  the  law  [i.e.,  ritual  require- 
ments] of  the  god  of  the  land."  Consequently  applica- 
tion was  made  for  a  Hebrew  priest  who  "came  and 
dwelt  in  Bethel,  and  taught  them  how  they  should 
fear  [i.e.,  worship]  Jahveh."  2 

It  appears,  therefore,  that  Jahveh  was  subject  to 
physical  conditions  of  a  definite  sort.  These  necessa- 
rily involve  other  limitations.  A  tribal  or  a  national 
deity  is  by  very  definition  a  limited  being.  He  can  be 
neither  omnipotent  nor  omniscient.  Such  attributes 
are  applicable  only  to  a  deity  whose  rule  is  universal. 
So  long  as  Jahveh  was  believed  to  reside  only  within 
Israel's  territory,  conceptions  of  his  might  and  power 
were  determined  by  this  belief.  Within  the  borders  of 
Palestine,  however,  the  Israelites  ascribed  to  him  a 

1  II  Kings  5: 17.  MI  Kings  17:24-28. 


64  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

practical  omnipotence.  If  an  eastern  potentate's  sub- 
jects scarcely  dared  to  suggest  that  there  were  limits 
to  the  king's  power,  how  much  less  likely  were  they  to 
employ  such  language  about  their  national  god? 
Hence  the  proverb  "Is  anything  too  hard  for  Jah- 
veh?"  x  If  he  chooses  to  assist  Jonathan  and  his 
armor-bearer,  there  is  nothing  that  can  hinder  him  to 
help  "by  many  or  by  few." 2 

But  even  these  expressions  do  not  disguise  the  fact 
that  the  ancient  Hebrew  thought  of  God  as  overcoming 
resistance  with  effort,  and  as  feeling  exasperation 
over  the  thwarting  of  his  plans.  The  latter  was  due  in 
part  to  the  assumed  limitations  of  his  knowledge.  In 
order  to  find  a  mate  for  Adam  he  first  engaged  in  a 
futile  experiment  with  animals.  He  had  to  search  and 
call  for  Adam  when  the  latter  had  hidden  himself. 
Disappointment  over  the  corruption  of  mankind 
"grieved  him  at  his  heart," 3  so  that  he  resolved  upon 
the  destruction  of  his  handiwork.  Not  a  few  of  his 
actions,  like  Adam's  expulsion  from  Eden  and  the  con- 
fusion of  tongues,  were  inspired  by  fear  that  man 
might  encroach  upon  his  privileges.  In  order  to  un- 
derstand the  character  of  men's  doings  "  Jahveh  came 
down  to  see  the  city  and  the  tower  which  the  children 
of  men  builded."  4  Similarly  he  went  himself  to  Sodom 
and  Gomorrah  in  order  to  "see  whether  they  have 
done  altogether  according  to  the  cry  of  it,  which  is 
come  unto  me;  and  if  not,  I  will  know."  6 

1  Gen.  18: 14  (J).  2  I  Sam.  14:6.  3  Gen.  6:6  (J). 

4  Gen.  11:5  (J).  6  Gen.  18:21  (J). 


MORAL  CHARACTER  OF  JAHVEH    65 

It  will  occur  to  the  reader  that  a  deity  who  betrays 
anxiety  lest  his  creatures  obtain  the  wisdom  or  the 
power  to  invade  his  prerogatives  has  not  only  physical 
but  moral  limitations.  Observe  the  tacit  assumption 
that  if  man  succeeds  in  eating  of  the  fruit  of  the  tree  of 
life  he  will  have  gained  something  of  which  even  Jah- 
veh  cannot  deprive  him.  In  other  words  the  tree  pos- 
sesses a  magical  virtue  which  is  independent  of  Jah- 
veh's  will  or  power.  If  this  were  not  the  case,  why  are 
preventive  measures  adopted  "lest  he  put  forth  his 
hand,  and  take  also  of  the  tree  of  life,  and  eat,  and  live 
forever?" 

Apparently  it  was  the  physical  limitations  of  Jahveh 
which,  in  the  thought  of  ancient  Israel,  sometimes 
made  him  act  from  unworthy  motives.  We  find  in 
the  early  traditions  no  assured  conviction  that  God 
uses  his  power  only  for  moral  ends.  The  self-regarding 
motives  with  which  the  early  writers  endow  him  often 
betray  him  into  unethical  actions.  Hence  the  pos- 
session of  great  power  on  his  part  was  to  them  a 
source  of  fear  rather  than  of  comfort,  for  they  thought 
he  used  it  more  often  to  avenge  personal  affronts  than 
to  enforce  obedience  to  the  moral  customs  of  the  time. 

One  of  the  causes  which  favored  this  mode  of 
thinking  about  Jahveh  was  the  settled  habit  of  explain- 
ing every  calamity  or  natural  phenomenon  as  due  to 
Jahveh's  direct  action.  Famine,  disease,  sudden  death, 
depredations  of  wild  beasts,  unsuccess  in  war,  earth- 
quakes, solar  eclipses  —  whenever  any  of  these  events 


66  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

occurred  the  ancient  Hebrew  looked  about  for  some 
specific  cause  that  might  have  moved  Jahveh  to  action. 
Obviously  no  one  at  this  time  knew  anything  about 
the  operation  of  natural  laws.  But  tragic  events  were 
taking  place  constantly,  and  the  supposed  infringe- 
ment of  numerous  ceremonial  taboos  offered  the 
easiest  recourse  for  an  explanation.  While  neither  the 
heeding  nor  the  neglect  of  some  of  these  ceremonial 
regulations  presented  a  moral  aspect,  they  all,  unfor- 
tunately, made  Jahveh  play  the  part  of  a  jealous  guard- 
ian of  his  personal  rights.  In  so  far  their  effect  was  to 
depress  the  moral  conception  of  Jahveh. 

When  David  undertook  to  bring  the  sacred  ark  to 
Jerusalem,  Uzzah,  with  the  best  intention,  put  forth 
his  hand  to  keep  it  from  falling  off  the  cart  at  a  point 
where  the  oxen  became  restive.  Whether  the  realiza- 
tion that  he  had  violated  a  taboo  induced  heart-failure 
or  a  stroke  of  apoplexy,  is  impossible  to  tell.  In  any 
case  sudden  death  overtook  him,  and  this  fact  required 
an  explanation.  The  one  which  the  Biblical  writer 
offers  is  surprisingly  unethical,  but  quite  in  accord 
with  contemporary  superstitions  about  Jahveh  and 
the  ark.  "The  anger  of  Jahveh  was  kindled  against 
Uzzah;  and  God  smote  him  there  for  his  error;  and 
there  he  died  by  the  ark  of  God,"1  The  mysterious 
occurrence  leads  the  narrator  to  remark  further  that 
"David  was  afraid  of  Jahveh  that  day,"  He  dis- 
trusted his  mood.  Under  the  circumstances  it  was  con- 

1  II  Sam.  6:7-9. 


MORAL  CHARACTER  OF  JAHVEH    67 

sidered  prudent  not  to  bring  the  ark  into  Jerusalem, 
but  to  leave  it  in  the  house  of  a  foreigner,  Obed-Edom, 
where  it  could  be  observed  for  a  change  in  Jahveh's 
temper. 

On  another  occasion,  when  David  was  a  fugitive,  he 
is  recorded  as  having  said  to  Saul,  "If  it  be  Jahveh 
that  hath  stirred  thee  up  against  me,  let  him  accept 
an  offering:  but  if  it  be  the  children  of  men,  cursed  be 
they  before  Jahveh."1  He  thought  it  quite  possible 
that  God,  for  some  reason,  might  be  intriguing  against 
him,  in  which  case  he  could  be  bought  off  with  a  sacri- 
fice. On  still  another  occasion  David  regarded  it  as 
certain  that  Jahveh  had  commanded  Shimei  to  curse 
him,2  and  a  writer  of  the  Book  of  Judges  declared  that 
"God  sent  an  evil  spirit  between  Abimelech  and  the 
men  of  Shechem."  3 

But  most  revealing  of  all  is  the  last  chapter  in  the 
second  book  of  Samuel,  which  records  the  origin  of  the 
sanctuary  at  Jerusalem.  The  chapter  tells  how  Jahveh4 
incited  David  to  take  a  census  of  the  Israelites  and 
then  took  offence  because  David  complied.  The  idea 
that  God  may  tempt  men  to  commit  a  sin  in  order  that 
he  may  have  an  excuse  for  punishing  them  was  not 
uncommon  in  antiquity.  It  has  been  embodied  in  the 
proverbial  saying  that  God  first  renders  mad  those 
whom  he  would  destroy.  When  the  time  of  reckoning 
arrived  David  was  given  his  choice  of  three  punish- 

1  I  Sam.  26  :  19.  2  II  Sam.  16  :  10.  3  Judg.  9  123. 

4  The  chronicler  (I  Chron.  21: 1)  unloads  responsibility  for  the  insti- 
gation of  the  act  upon  Satan. 


68  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

ments:  seven  years  of  famine,  three  months  of  flight 
before  his  enemies,  or  a  three  days'  pestilence.  David 
chose  the  pestilence  and  seventy  thousand  of  his  inno- 
cent warriors  died  for  his  personal  act  before  the 
plague  was  stayed.  To  a  modern  mind  such  acts  of 
caprice  are  unthinkable  in  connection  with  God.  But 
to  the  ancient  Hebrew,  who  sometimes  was  forced  to 
harmonize  the  oracular  directions  of  one  day  with  the 
calamities  of  the  next,  events  seemed  to  prove  that 
Jahveh  was  liable  at  times  to  "break  forth"1  into 
unaccountable  acts  and  sudden  exhibitions  of  ill 
temper. 

Having  set  these  facts  before  the  reader  we  ought, 
perhaps,  to  say  a  little  more  about  the  personality  of 
Jahveh  as  it  presents  itself  in  the  prophetic  documents. 
That  the  narrators  did  not  hesitate  to  ascribe  human 
passions  to  him  is  an  open  fact  to  all  readers  of  the 
Old  Testament.  In  the  later  periods  of  Hebrew  liter- 
ature it  is  possible  to  detect  a  growing  sensitiveness  on 
this  score,  and  a  deliberate  avoidance  of  crude  an- 
thropomorphisms. But  the  writers  of  the  J  and  E 
documents  did  not  hesitate  to  endow  Jahveh  with 
their  own  passionate  natures. 

Like  other  ancient  religious  communities  they  at- 
tributed their  own  enmities  and  hatreds  to  the  national 
deity,  and  the  horrible  barbarities  of  war  practised  in 
those  days  not  only  had  Jahveh's  sanction,  but  were 
enforced  as  religious  duties.    We  need  instance  only 

*  II  Sam.  6:8. 


MORAL  CHARACTER  OF  JAHVEH    69 

the  case  of  Saul  and  the  Amalekites.  Saul's  failure  to 
carry  out  utterly,  from  whatever  motive,  the  vow  to 
destroy  both  man  and  beast,  should  from  our  point  of 
view  have  been  reckoned  to  his  credit,  instead  of 
having  been  made  the  occasion  to  deprive  him  of  the 
kingship.  But  foreign  nations  and  the  gods  were  held 
to  be  so  unquestionably  foes  of  Jahveh  that  Old  Testa- 
ment writers  often  represent  him  as  angrily  resenting 
the  sparing  of  conquered  enemies.  Every  foreigner 
was  at  least  a  potential  enemy.  Actual  foes  of  Jahveh 
were  all  with  whom  Israel  engaged  in  feud  or  warfare, 
so  that  a  record  of  Israel's  martial  exploits  could  be 
entitled  "Book  of  the  Wars  of  Jahveh."1 

A  peculiarly  primitive  conception  of  Jahveh's  per- 
sonality comes  to  expression  in  the  Jahvistic  stratum 
of  Ex.  32  and  33.  The  jealous  wrath  of  Jahveh  is 
aroused  by  the  worship  of  the  "golden  calf,"  and  he 
resolves  to  destroy  the  faithless  Israelites.  Then 
Moses  intervenes  by  reminding  him  of  his  oath,  and 
by  recalling  him,  as  it  were,  to  his  own  better  self,  so 
that  he  is  led  to  "repent  of  the  evil  which  he  said  he 
would  do  unto  his  people."  By  comparison  Moses 
appears  more  just  and  humane  than  God,  who,  like 
a  quick-tempered  monarch,  is  protected  by  his  vizier 
from  the  consequences  of  his  own  ill-considered  actions. 

The  Jahvist  apparently  did  not  feel  Jahveh's  lia- 
bility to  sudden  fits  of  anger  as  a  moral  defect.  He 
even  puts  into  the  mouth  of  God  the  words,  "Ye  are 

1  Num.  21: 14. 


70  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

a  stiff-necked  people;  if  I  go  up  in  the  midst  of  thee 
for  one  moment,  I  shall  consume  thee."1  The  context, 
in  which  the  "fierce  wrath"2  of  Jahveh  plays  so  large 
a  part,  makes  it  clear  that  in  these  words  Jahveh  ex- 
presses distrust  of  his  own  angry  moods.  The  grave 
moral  defects  of  such  a  conception  of  God  need  not 
be  pointed  out.  They  are  the  shadows  of  the  Jahvist's 
social  experience  projected  upon  the  clouds. 

The  counterpart  to  Jahveh's  spatial  and  other  lim- 
itations is  found  in  the  attitude  toward  non-Israelites 
which  the  early  writers  ascribe  to  him.  A  national 
deity  is  a  partisan  deity,  and  Jahveh  is  no  exception 
in  this  respect.  Even  though  such  a  deity  should  define 
religion  in  terms  of  moral  obligation,  it  would  be 
moral  obligation  between  Israelites  only.  For  just  as 
Jahveh  to  the  early  writers  is  the  God  of  Palestine  and 
not  of  the  universe,  so  he  is  the  God  of  Israel  and  not 
of  mankind.  The  influence  of  this  nationalistic  con- 
ception of  Jahveh  was  felt  strongly  within  the  sphere 
of  social  duty.  Its  immediate  effect  was  to  limit  the 
range  of  moral  obligation  to  dealings  with  one's  coun- 
trymen. Given  the  belief  that  Jahveh's  interest  is 
limited  to  Israelites,  and  that  he  is  the  patron  of 
justice  between  Israelites  merely  within  the  borders  of 

1  Ex.  33:5  (E);  cf.  vs.  3  (JE).  Observe  the  naive  implication  that 
Jahveh  is  a  localized  personality.  If  he  does  not  go  up  with  Israel  he 
does  not  expose  himself  to  those  occasions  which  might  provoke  him  to 
destructive  manifestations  of  anger.  Jahveh's  knowledge  of  the  conduct 
of  the  Israelites  depends  upon  his  physical  presence  among  them.  This 
presence  was  in  early  times  associated  with  the  ark. 

*  Ex.  32: 9-14  (JE). 


MORAL   CHARACTER  OF  JAHVEH     71 

his  own  land,  it  follows  that  dealings  with  foreigners 
are  governed  by  expediency,  not  by  moral  obligation. 

This  restriction  of  early  Hebrew  social  morality  to 
the  tribal  or  national  group  corresponds  to  similar  de- 
velopments elsewhere.  Cicero  wrote  that  to  "confine 
man  to  the  duties  of  his  own  city,  and  to  disengage 
him  from  duties  to  the  members  of  other  cities,  is  to 
break  the  universal  society  of  the  human  race."1  But 
on  the  whole  it  was  not  until  the  beginning  of  the 
Christian  era,  according  to  Lecky,2  that  the  Romans 
experienced  that  "enlargement  of  moral  sympathies 
which,  having  at  first  comprised  only  a  class  or  a  sta- 
tion, came  at  last,  by  the  destruction  of  many  artifi- 
cial barriers,  to  include  all  classes  and  all  nations." 
Though  earlier  Greek  thinkers  had  expressed  a  broader 
view,  Aristotle  in  the  fourth  century  B.C.  still  held  that 
"  Greeks  owe  no  greater  duties  to  barbarians  than  to 
wild  beasts."  It  need  not  surprise  any  one,  therefore, 
to  find  that  there  was  no  religious  or  moral  bond 
regulating  the  conduct  of  Israelites  with  men  of  other 
nations.  We  may,  indeed,  go  further  and  say  that  to 
blink  the  presence  of  this  limited  view  of  moral  obliga- 
tion in  the  Old  Testament  is  to  place  a  serious  obstacle 
in  the  path  of  religious  progress. 

One  important  source  for  the  study  of  Israel's  moral 
ideas  is  found  in  the  characters  of  persons  whom  they 
idealized,  such  as  Abraham,  Jacob,  Moses,  Samuel, 

1  De  offic,  in,  6. 

2  Hist,  of  European  Morals  (Appleton  cd.,  1870),  vol  I,  p.  239. 


72  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

David,  and  others.  A  classic  illustration  of  group  mo- 
rality is  afforded  by  the  story  of  Abraham's  descent 
into  Egypt.1  To  guard  against  possible  danger  to  him- 
self he  tells  a  lie  that  involves  his  wife  in  dishonor. 
After  Pharaoh  has  enriched  Abraham  on  her  account 
with  sheep,  cattle,  asses,  camels,  and  slaves,  Jahveh 
compels  him  to  restore  Sarah  to  her  husband.  Thus 
the  clan-god  secures  to  Abraham  the  practical  advan- 
tages of  his  own  deception.  The  story  implies  the  com- 
mon belief  and  practice  of  the  time  that  there  is  no 
moral  obligation  which  a  Hebrew  is  bound  to  respect 
in  his  dealings  with  a  foreigner.  The  action  of  Jahveh 
exhibits  this  moral  defect,  for  he  helps  Abraham,  not 
because  he  is  right,  but  because  he  is  his  client. 

The  Elhoist2  narrates  the  same  tradition,  but  with 
significant  evidence  of  deeper  moral  feeling.  Abime- 
lech  here  appears  as  the  foreigner  who  sets  off  the 
shrewdness  and  superior  divine  affiliations  of  the  tribal 
father.  Abraham  tells  the  same  untruth,  but  the  nar- 
rator seeks  to  mitigate  the  fact  by  pointing  out  that 
it  was  a  half-truth,  or  white  lie.  The  attempt  to  extri- 
cate Abraham  from  an  unethical  situation  by  sophistry 
is  not  morally  defensible,  but  indicates  that  the  nar- 
rator felt  the  injustice  involved  in  a  lie  that  proved 
injurious,  even  though  it  was  only  a  foreigner  who 
suffered.  By  our  moral  standard  it  is  Abraham, 
not  Abimelech,  who  owes  reparation.  Nevertheless, 
Jahveh  punishes  the  man  to  whom  Abraham    has 

1  Gen.  12: 10  ff.   (J).  2  Gen.  20  (E). 


MORAL  CHARACTER  OF  JAHVEH     73 

"done  deeds  that  ought  not  to  be  done,"  and  then 
humiliates  him  still  more  by  suggesting  that  he  secure 
the  favor  of  Abraham's  intercession;  as  if  the  right 
and  wrong  of  the  case  were  of  less  moment  to  Jahveh 
than  the  triumph  and  enrichment  of  his  client. 
Clearly  the  Jahveh  of  this  story  is  far  from  being  a 
guardian  of  universal  moral  law.  He  is  a  petty  and 
partisan  tribal  god. 

These  Abraham  stories  are  by  no  means  exceptional 
in  the  attitude  which  they  make  Jahveh  adopt  toward 
foreigners.  Even  greater  moral  obliquity  is  exhibited 
in  the  story  that  tells  how  Jacob  deceives  his  blind 
old  father,  and  filches  the  blessing  from  Esau,  who 
represents  the  Edomites.  Despite  falsehood  and  de- 
ception, so  runs  the  tale,  Jahveh  espouses  the  cause 
of  Jacob,  for  it  is  again  the  case  of  an  Israelite  against 
a  foreigner.  On  the  same  principle  the  Israelites,  on 
the  eve  of  departure  from  Egypt,  are  directed  by 
Jahveh  to  borrow  from  the  Egyptians1  —  with  the 
concealed  intention  of  keeping  what  they  get!  If  the 
Israelites  had  treated  their  fellow  countrymen  as 
they  treated  the  Egyptians,  they  would  have  offended 
against  the  moral  standard  of  their  time,  and  been 
subject  to  Jahveh's  displeasure.  But  the  spoiling  of 
foreigners  was  no  sin  in  Jahveh's  eyes;  on  the  contrary, 
we  are  told  that  "Jahveh  gave  the  people  favour  in  the 
sight  of  the  Egyptians,  so  that  they  let  them  have 
what  they  asked.  And  they  despoiled  the  Egyptians."2 
»  Ex.  11:2  (E).  «  Ex.  12:35,  36(E). 


74  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT 

The  reaction  of  a  higher  morality  against  the  defective 
ethics  of  such  traditions  reminds  one  of  the  famous 
line  of  Lucan:  "The  gods  favored  the  conquering 
cause,  but  Cato  the  conquered." 

All  this  illustrates  how  the  national-god  idea  worked 
itself  out  in  practical  ethics.  The  conviction  that 
Jahveh'sacts  must  always  be  governed  by  moral  ends, 
and  not  by  racial  preferences,  had  at  this  time  scarcely 
dawned  upon  the  Hebrew  mind.  They  ascribed  to 
him  some  moral  characteristics,  not  a  moral  character, 
immutable  and  eternal.  In  the  light  of  this  fact,  and 
of  their  particularism,  it  is  easily  seen  how  they  could 
regard  Jahveh  as  guardian  of  justice  and  morality  in 
Israel,  and  yet  ascribe  to  him  acts  and  commands 
that  were  neither  just  nor  moral. 

Unless  his  mental  vision  is  dimmed  by  a  false  doc- 
trine of  Scripture  a  discerning  reader  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment will  soon  perceive  that  in  these  stories  he  really 
discovers  the  early  Israelite  painting  his  own  ethical 
portrait  as  that  of  Jahveh.  It  is  he,  not  Jahveh,  whose 
moral  character  lacks  coherence,  whose  acts  are  often 
immoral  and  unjust,  whose  humanity  has  racial  and 
geographical  limits,  and  whose  religion  still  is  honey- 
combed with  unreason  and  superstition. 

If  this  be  true,  what  was  the  consequence?  It  follows 
that  for  every  Israelite  who  took  these  stories  to  be 
objectively  true,  they  provided  existing  practices  with 
divine  approvals.  It  involved  the  assumption  that 
Jahveh's  will  coincided  with  Israel's  national  customs 


MORAL  CHARACTER  OF  JAHVEH     75 

and  morals;  that  he  was  the  guardian  of  Israel's  social 
order  as  it  was,  and  that  only  an  infraction  of  that 
order  was  an  infraction  of  his  will.  It  meant  that  the 
average  Israelite  was  enabled  to  contemplate  his  own 
very  imperfect  ethical  ideals  as  God's  ideals.  Against 
this  comfortable  conception  of  Jahveh's  character  and 
demands  Amos  and  Hosea  were  the  first  to  hurl  passion- 
ate denials.  Under  the  moral  revolution  which  they 
inaugurated  the  stories  which  we  have  considered 
not  only  became  unbelievable,  but  scandalously  and 
wickedly  untrue.  It  was  Jeremiah  who  wrote,  "Take 
heed  every  one  of  his  neighbour,  and  trust  ye  not  in 
any  brother;  for  every  brother  will  play  Jacob's  tricks, 
and  every  neighbour  will  go  about  with  slanders."  1 

Jahveh's  relation  to  his  own  worshippers  is  a  sub- 
ject which  must  next  engage  our  attention.  The  early 
documents  assume  the  existence  of  a  covenant  rela- 
tionship between  Jahveh  and  his  people.  This  means 
an  agreement  in  which  both  parties  pledged  themselves 
to  do  certain  things.  The  ceremony  of  "cutting"  a 
covenant  could  hardly  be  cruder  than  it  appears  in 
the  JE  account  of  the  covenant  made  with  Abraham. 
When  darkness  had  fallen,  Jahveh  passed  as  a  flame 
between  the  severed  carcasses  of  the  animals,  and  so 
ratified  his  part  of  the  covenant.  The  ceremony  sug- 
gests the  self-imposition  of  a  curse  for  failure  to  fulfil 
the  agreement.   An  alliance  made  on  these  terms  with 

1  Jer.  9  :4;  cf.  vs. 3.  The  Hebrew  words  translated  in  the  R.V.  "shall 
utterly  supplant"  undoubtedly  are  a  censuring  allusion  to  Jacob's 
trickeries,  for  they  are  a  word-play  on  his  name. 


76  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

a  divinity  must  strike  a  modern  mind  as  something 
strange  and  primitive.  Yet  the  covenant  idea  is  fun- 
damental in  Israel's  religion,  and  when  one  takes  the 
sources  of  the  idea  into  account,  it  becomes  clear  that 
up  to  a  certain  point  it  rendered  moral  service.  But 
some  of  the  forms  in  which  it  still  survives  in  Christian 
thought  must  be  reckoned  among  the  superannuated 
rudiments  of  religion. 

Among  nomads,  relations  between  individuals  or 
groups  were  regulated  by  covenant.  Those  made  be- 
tween Abraham  and  Abimelech,  and  Jacob  and  Laban, 
may  serve  as  examples.  In  each  case  Jahveh  was  made 
third  party  to  the  covenant,  for  it  devolved  upon  the 
clan-deity  to  see  that  the  principals  observed  the  cov- 
enant after  they  had  separated  and  could  not  hold 
each  other  to  account;  as  Laban  puts  it,  "Jahveh 
watch  [and  intervene  if  necessary]  between  me  and 
thee  when  we  are  separated  one  from  another."1  The 
blood  of  the  sacrificial  victims  sealed  the  compact. 

The  covenant-guarding  is  also  a  covenant-making 
deity.  The  covenant  ceremony  between  Jahveh  and 
Israel  is  narrated  by  the  Elohist.  Moses  sprinkles  the 
blood  of  the  sacrificial  victims  upon  both  parties  to 
the  contract,2  —  upon  the  people,  who  are  regarded  as 
a  collective  unit,  and  upon  Jahveh,  who  is  represented 
by  the  altar.  Here,  as  always,  the  object  of  the  cove- 
nant was  the  preservation  and  prosperity  of  the  politi- 

1  Gen.  31:49  (J).  Inexact  rendering  of  one  word  by  "absent"  has 
caused  the  verse  generally  to  be  misunderstood. 

2  Ex.  24:  3-8  (E). 


MORAL   CHARACTER  OF  JAHVEH     77 

cal  group  which  was  believed  to  depend  almost  entirely 
upon  the  favor  of  the  national  deity.  The  way  to 
secure  his  favor  was  to  observe  carefully  the  provis- 
ions of  "the  book  of  the  covenant,"  1  with  respect  to 
which  the  people  bound  themselves  to  do  "all  that 
Jahveh  hath  spoken." 

Examination  of  the  Book  of  the  Covenant,  Exodus 
20:22-23:33,  shows  that  it  was  a  brief  digest  of  cus- 
tomary laws  concerning  compensations  for  injury, 
debtors,  slaves,  homicide,  and  numerous  other  issues 
that  were  liable  to  arise  in  the  life  of  an  ancient  com- 
munity. Mixed  with  them  are  directions  regarding 
religious  festivals,  sacrifice,  and  some  ritual  taboos. 
The  collection  of  "ordinances"  exhibits  that  absence 
of  differentiation  between  various  kinds  of  laws  which 
is  characteristic  of  clan-custom.  Considering  the  time 
to  which  they  belong,  most  of  them  show  a  fine  quality 
of  simple  justice.  But  a  considerable  number  are  un- 
questionably immoral,  judged  by  the  standard  of  mo- 
rality common  to  most  civilized  people.  Some  in  fact 
were  judged  to  be  wrong  or  unjust  by  the  Deuterono- 
mists  a  century  later,  for  they  abrogated  or  modified 
them  in  the  new  code  which  they  drew  up.  Yet  both 
the  original  laws  and  the  contradictory,  or  divergent, 
new  ones  were  set  forth  as  "the  ordinances  of  Jahveh." 

Any  act,  then,  which  was  contrary  to  the  will  of 
the  national  god  expressed  in  the  covenant-ordinances 
was  simultaneously  a  political  and  a  religious  offence, 

1  Ex.  24:  7. 


78  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

a  breach  of  the  covenant  which  guaranteed  political 
security  and  prosperity  to  the  nation.  Before  the 
Israelites  entered  Palestine,  a  writer  of  the  Amarna 
letters  used  the  Hebrew  word  for  "sin"  to  describe  an 
act  of  disloyalty  to  the  king  of  which  he  had  been 
accused.  In  repudiating  the  charge  he  protested  that 
he  was  "righteous,"  using  the  word  in  the  sense  of 
loyal.  It  follows  that  loyalty  to  the  gods  and  loyalty 
to  the  king  were  indistinguishable  to  the  writers  of  the 
Amarna  letters.  The  righteous  man  was  the  loyal  man 
who  conformed  to  the  usage  of  the  group ;  and  since 
a  covenant  between  a  man  and  his  deity  involved 
mutual  obligations,  the  covenant-loyalty  of  the  deity 
came  to  be  regarded  as  his  righteousness.  There  are 
clear  traces  of  both  these  conceptions  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament. We  must  assume,  therefore,  that  among  the 
Hebrews,  as  among  the  Canaanites,  ideas  of  right- 
eousness and  sin  have  arisen  out  of  their  social  order 
and  so  share  its  moral  excellence  and  defects. 

The  usage  of  the  group  to  which  the  ancient  Israelite 
was  expected  to  conform  was  by  no  means  of  one  piece, 
as  has  been  pointed  out.  Besides  the  fundamental 
social  duties  there  was  a  large  mass  of  observances 
which  had  for  their  object  protection  against  super- 
natural dangers.  They  concerned,  in  the  main,  a  man's 
relation  to  the  "holy"  and  the  "unclean."  The  reader 
should  disabuse  himself  at  once  of  the  notion  that 
these  terms,  from  the  earliest  Hebrew  antiquity,  re- 
ferred to  moral   purity  and   impurity.    In  the  early 


MORAL  CHARACTER  OF  JAHVEH    79 

literature  they  mostly  refer  to  customs  and  things 
that  have  nothing  to  do  with  morality.  We  are  in  the 
realm,  here,  of  Semitic  taboos. 

A  taboo  may  be  roughly  described  as  something 
that  one  must  not  do  lest  ill  befall.  After  touching  a 
corpse,  or  the  blood  of  a  sacrifice,  or  handling  objects 
connected  with  the  sanctuary,  one  has  to  observe  cer- 
tain precautions.  ' '  Holiness ' '  and  ' '  uncleanness ' '  were 
believed  to  be  catching  like  a  contagious  disease.  Thus 
one  person  might  communicate  the  unpleasant  con- 
sequences of  his  act  to  the  whole  community.  There- 
fore, the  breaking  of  a  taboo,  whether  by  accident  or 
design,  was  a  "sin,"  and  as  such  prejudicial  to  the 
welfare  of  the  community.  It  was  every  one's  concern 
to  wipe  out  such  a  sin,  and  it  was  usually  done  by 
wiping  out  the  sinner.  The  mysterious  contagion  of 
Achan's  violated  taboo  was  supposed  to  have  spread  to 
everything  about  him;  so  the  Israelites  killed  not  only 
him,  but  his  entire  family  and  his  domestic  animals. 
This  was  believed  to  destroy  the  source  of  the  con- 
tagion. 

Even  in  connection  with  Jahveh  the  term  "holy" 
often  describes  anything  but  an  ethical  quality.  It 
seems  at  times  to  indicate  simply  the  inapproachable- 
ness  of  Jahveh  and  the  resentment  which  he  mani- 
fests when  men  violate  his  etiquette  of  approach.  He 
is  represented  as  having  slain  seventy  men  of  Beth- 
shemesh  "because  they  had  looked  into  the  ark."  A 
glossator  did  not  consider  the  casualty  list  in  propor- 


80  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

tion  to  the  sin  committed,  so  he  added  fifty  thousand 
more.  Then  the  men  of  Beth-shemesh  asked,  "Who 
is  able  to  stand  before  Jahveh,  this  holy  God?"  * 

Most  early  societies  had  regulations  against  witch- 
craft. The  Covenant  Code,  also,  provided  that  a 
sorceress  is  not  to  be  suffered  to  live.  Sorcery  was  be- 
lieved to  consist  in  leaguing  one's  self  with  some  su- 
pernatural power  to  effect  selfish  ends  inimical  to  the 
general  welfare.  Therefore,  the  same  penalty  was  pro- 
vided as  for  the  worship  of  another  deity:  "He  that 
sacrificeth  to  any  god  save  Jahveh  only,  shall  be  utterly 
destroyed."2  The  thought  of  our  time  classifies  such 
matters  as  harmless  superstitions  and  thereby  takes 
them  entirely  out  of  the  category  of  sin.  Failure  to 
recognize  them  as  remnants  of  old  superstitions  has 
frequently  made  the  Bible  an  instrument  in  the  per- 
petuation of  such  atrocities  as  the  witch-burnings  of 
England  and  Scotland,  and  the  hangings  which  fol- 
lowed a  witchcraft  delusion  in  Massachusetts. 

The  food  taboos  constitute  another  large  group  of 
regulations  that  illustrate  one  phase  of  the  Hebrew 
idea  of  sin.  Many  of  them  are  of  complex  and  obscure 
origin.  They  prevailed  during  the  entire  Old  Testa- 
ment period.  Some  animals  probably  became  forbid- 
den food  because  they  figured  prominently  in  foreign 
cults.    Others    must    have    acquired    their  uncanny 

1  I  Sam.  6:19,  20.  The  LXX  has  a  clause  which  gives  a  different 
and  even  less  reasonable  occasion  for  Jahveh's  anger,  viz.,  that  "the 
sons  of  Jeconiah  did  not  rejoice  with  the  men  of  Beth-shemesh  when 
they  looked  upon  the  ark  of  Jahveh." 

2  Ex.  22: 18,  20. 


MORAL   CHARACTER  OF  JAHVEH    81 

character  through  connection  with  totemism.  In  short, 
these  taboos  represent  a  mass  of  more  or  less  evapo- 
rated beliefs  that  have  lost  the  freshness  of  their  early 
meanings.  As  a  class  they  also  belong  in  the  realm  of 
superstition.  Jesus  said,  "There  is  nothing  from  with- 
out the  man,  that  going  into  him  can  defile  him."  Yet 
to  violate  any  of  these  taboos  was,  according  to  He- 
brew ideas,  a  sin.  It  rendered  a  man  "  unclean,"  and 
consequently  an  object  of  displeasure  to  the  deity. 

Being  external  and  mechanical,  such  sins  were 
purged  away  by  an  external  and  mechanical  ritual.  In 
a  system  in  which  even  sins  committed  unwittingly 
had  to  be  accounted  for,  there  could  be  no  call  to  real 
repentance,  no  appeal  to  the  individual  conscience. 
The  sacrificial  ritual,  and  some  external  forms  of 
abasement,  were  men's  chief  dependence  to  secure 
atonement.  It  is  a  significant  fact  that  the  denuncia- 
tion of  such  mechanical  means  of  atonement  by  the 
prophets  was  accompanied  by  new  ideas  of  what  con- 
stituted sin  in  the  eyes  of  God. 

Two  things  stand  out  clearly  from  the  discussion  of 
these  taboos :  — 

i.  The  early  Old  Testament  idea  of  sin  has  long 
ceased  to  be  coextensive  with  ours.  Many  things  de- 
scribed as  "holy,"  or  "unclean,"  have  nothing  to  do 
with  truth  or  falsehood,  good  or  bad.  On  the  other 
hand,  certain  social  institutions,  like  polygamy  and 
slavery,  about  which  the  Israelites  had  no  moral 
scruples,  now  lie  under  strong  moral  condemnation  in 


82  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

all  civilized  countries.  Within  the  Old  Testament,  also, 
the  two  concepts  of  righteousness  and  sin  underwent 
considerable  change,  especially  after  the  activity  of 
the  prophets  began. 

2.  The  guilt  which  a  man  was  believed  to  incur  by 
violating  a  taboo  was  of  a  mysterious  physical  kind, 
which  could  be  communicated,  like  a  disease,  by  con- 
tagion or  infection.  Unless  it  was  checked  by  some 
act  of  purgation,  the  pollution  generated  by  one  man's 
act  might  spread  through  the  entire  social  group  and 
render  every  member  sinful  in  the  eyes  of  God.  Ap- 
parently the  very  element  which  we  have  found  to  be 
a  meaningless  superstition,  in  the  Hebrew  conception 
of  sin,  is  the  thing  upon  which  the  doctrines  of  original 
sin  and  total  depravity  are  founded.  It  can  hardly  be 
anything  else,  ultimately,  than  the  infection-idea  of 
sin,  brought  over  from  the  Old  Testament,  which  Paul 
sets  forth  in  the  fifth  chapter  of  Romans  when  he  says 
that  "through  the  one  man's  [Adam's]  disobedience 
the  many  were  made  sinners."  Adam's  sin  was  the 
violation  of  a  food  taboo,  such  as  a  purely  moral  con- 
ception of  God  would  exclude  from  his  acts  and  pur- 
poses. Let  it  be  observed  that  the  idea  of  collective 
responsibility,  also  a  survival  from  primitive  times, 
continued  to  play  a  part  in  this  complex  of  ideas. 

We  have  reached  the  point  where  the  idea  of  col- 
lective responsibility  and  that  of  the  physical  com- 
municability  of  sin  merge  in  the  idea  of  collective 
guilt  and  punishment.    Many  a  pious  soul  has  been 


MORAL  CHARACTER  OF  JAHVEH    83 

troubled  by  such  questions  as,  Why  did  God  destroy 
not  only  adults  in  the  Flood,  but  all  children  and 
animals?  They  surely  deserved  a  better  fate!  "All 
flesh  had  corrupted  their  way  upon  the  earth," l 
answers  the  priestly  writer.  Collective  guilt,  collect- 
ive responsibility,  sin  diffused  like  a  leaven  through  the 
whole  lump  —  all  expressed  in  one  phrase !  From  the 
point  of  view  of  antiquity  we  have  here  a  sufficient 
justification  for  God's  indiscriminating  destruction  of 
"all  flesh."  The  ancients  were  not  often  troubled  by 
the  feeling  that  wholesale  catastrophes,  which  swept 
away  entire  populations,  could  not  be  regarded  as 
divine  punishments  without  impugning  the  justice  of 
God. 

But  their  answer  no  longer  suffices  us.  Even  if 
science  and  historical  criticism  had  not  demonstrated 
that  the  Flood  described  in  Genesis  can  never  have 
taken  place,  we  should  on  moral  grounds  have  to 
discard  it  as  a  punitive  act  of  God.  Long  adherence 
to  the  principle  that  righteousness,  sin,  and  punish- 
ment can  concern  only  the  individual,  has  made  the 
idea  of  collective  responsibility  appear  barbarous.  In 
fact,  the  Hebrews  themselves  began  to  outgrow  these 
ideas  about  the  time  of  the  Babylonian  exile. 

But  there  are  indications  even  in  J  that  the  ancient 
Israelite  doubted  at  times  whether  God  was  always 
just  when  he  punished  men  collectively.  Abraham, 
arguing  with  Jahveh  before  the  destruction  of  Sodom 

1  Gen.  6: 12. 


84  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

and  Gomorrah,  says:  "That  be  far  from  thee  to  do 
after  this  manner,  to  slay  the  righteous  with  the  wicked, 
that  so  the  righteous  should  be  as  the  wicked ;  that  be 
far  from  thee:  shall  not  the  Judge  of  all  the  earth  do 
right?"1  What  lies  behind  the  question  but  the  fear 
that  God  may  not  always  discriminate  between  the 
good  and  the  bad  in  his  wholesale  inflictions  of  punish- 
ment. The  very  assumption  of  the  Jahvistic  writer, 
that  God  may  be  argued  into  justice  by  reminding  him 
of  his  obligations  as  a  judge,  shows  absence  of  Amos' 
assurance  about  a  God  whose  justice  is  an  inner  neces- 
sity of  his  being,  and  as  unvarying  as  the  law  of  gravity. 
Readers  of  the  dialogue  between  Jahveh  and  Abra- 
ham will  observe  that  Abraham's  anxiety  concerns 
only  adults.  A  modern  must  feel  that  the  presence  of 
children  in  those  cities  should  have  raised  much  the 
more  serious  question  of  justice  in  connection  with 
their  destruction.  Yet  claims  of  the  children's  right- 
eousness are  not  advanced.  Why?  First,  because  the 
"righteousness"  under  consideration  still  is  largely  if 
not  entirely  forensic.  It  could  be  predicated  only  of 
those  who  discharged  the  political  and  religious  ob- 
ligations on  behalf  of  the  family  —  the  heads  of  fami- 
lies. Secondly,  because  children  were  not  independent 
persons.  They  were  property  in  a  narrower  sense  even 
than  women.  The  writer  naively  assumes  for  Jahveh 
the  feeling  and  practice  of  his  time,  which  regarded 
children  up  to  the  age  of  puberty  as  property.    Con- 

1  Gen.  18:25. 


MORAL  CHARACTER  OF  JAHVEH    85 

sequently  what  happened  to  them  was  considered  only 
in  the  light  of  its  effect  upon  the  owner,  the  head  of  the 
family.  Here,  indeed,  we  are  at  the  source  of  such  no- 
tions as  that  Jahveh  could  command  Abraham  to 
sacrifice  his  son,  the  first-born  being  the  best  of  a  man's 
alienable  possessions. 

This  discussion  of  morals  and  God  in  the  early  litera- 
ture of  Israel  has  been  confined  somewhat  closely  to 
those  features  which  serve  best  as  a  background  for 
the  new  conceptions  advanced  by  the  prophets.  It 
would  be  easy  to  brighten  the  picture  which  we  have 
drawn  by  citing  those  instances  in  which  the  higher 
conceptions  of  God  and  duty  came  to  expression.  Had 
there  not  been  a  substratum  of  ethical  and  spiritual 
qualities  in  the  life  of  the  people,  the  prophets  could 
not  have  appealed  to  their  hearers  as  they  did.  But 
there  also  was  so  much  unreason  and  superstition  in 
the  early  religion,  so  much  that  is  unworthy  of  the  de- 
fence which  it  still  enjoys  among  persons  who  are  more 
zealous  than  informed,  that  we  have  thought  best  in 
this  chapter  to  prepare  its  most  harmful  features  for 
slaughter  by  the  prophets.  We  are  now  with  Amos 
and  Hosea  at  the  turn  of  the  road  that  leads  to  morally 
higher  and  rationally  more  tenable  views. 

We  have  not  said  anything  in  this  chapter  about  the 
decalogue.  If  one  adopts  the  Mosaic  origin  of  the 
decalogue  in  the  form  in  which  it  has  come  down  to  us, 
it  should  have  received  consideration  in  the  chapter  on 
Moral  Beginnings.   But  the  evidence  indicates  that 


86  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

the  form  in  which  we  have  it  is  the  form  which  it  as- 
sumed at  the  end  of  a  long  development.  In  view  of 
the  fact  that  some  of  its  precepts  are  undoubtedly 
very  ancient,  bridging  the  period  between  the  pre- 
Mosaic  era  and  that  of  the  exile,  we  feel  justified  in 
taking  up  the  decalogue  separately  in  the  next  chap- 
ter. By  doing  this  we  are  afforded  an  opportunity  to 
discuss  in  greater  detail  certain  fundamental  features 
of  Hebrew  morality,  together  with  the  changes  that 
took  place. 


CHAPTER   IV 

ORIGIN  AND   MORAL  SIGNIFICANCE  OF  THE 

DECALOGUE 

Among  the  earliest  aids  to  memory  used  by  the  an- 
cients were  ten-finger  memorials,  or  decalogues.  They 
were  formularies  employed  to  summarize  those  duties 
and  practices  upon  which  the  conscience  of  the  social 
group  laid  most  emphasis.  The  makers  and  codifiers 
of  Israel's  laws  likewise  made  use  of  this  device.  But 
no  social  conscience  ever  was,  or  can  be,  static  in  its 
content,  and  that  of  Israel  was  no  exception. 

The  almost  unanimous  testimony  of  human  experi- 
ence shows  that  the  lawmaker  does  not  precede,  but 
follows,  the  developing  social  conscience.  What  the 
lawgiver  enacts  into  formal  precept  or  law  must  pre- 
viously have  proved  its  worth  in  the  collective  ex- 
perience, otherwise  it  would  have  no  binding  force. 

In  the  light  of  considerations  like  these  the  search 
for  a  definite  chronological  origin  of  the  decalogue 
looks  like  a  mistake  of  method  induced  by  the  view 
that  a  Hebrew  lawgiver,  in  Old  Testament  ethics, 
could  make  eight  o'clock  into  noon  by  pushing  the 
hands  of  the  clock  around.  Indeed,  the  attempt  to 
find  a  precise  place  for  the  origin  of  the  decalogue  in 
the  moral  development  of  the  Hebrews  seems  futile. 
Belief  in  its  Mosaic  origin  in  any  of  the  forms  in  which 


88  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT 

it  has  come  down  to  us  may  be  regarded  as  abandoned 
by  most  Old  Testament  scholars.1  Further  investiga- 
tion, we  believe,  will  establish  as  certain  that  the  dec- 
alogue embodies  within  itself  the  products  of  different 
developments  of  divers  origins.  In  other  words,  the 
decalogue  did  not  spring  into  existence  full-grown,  like 
Minerva  from  the  head  of  Jove,  but  is  itself  the  out- 
come of  a  long  and  complex  development.  That  com- 
mands against  the  use  of  images  in  worship  and  against 
stealing  should  have  arisen  simultaneously  is  incredi- 
ble to  a  student  of  ethical  origins. 

A  little  reflection  will  show  that  it  is  only  some  form 
or  arrangement  of  the  decalogue,  not  the  origination 
of  the  ethical  obligations  it  expresses,  that  could  at 
best  be  attributed  to  Moses.  The  wrong  of  murder, 
theft,  false  witness,  and  adultery  required  no  special 
revelation  even  in  his  day.  Such  acts  had  been  pe- 
nalized in  the  Hammurabi  Code  a  thousand  years 
earlier,  and  are  among  the  commonplaces  of  prayers 
and  confessions  in  other  early  literature  of  Egypt  and 
Babylonia.  Hebrew  tradition  itself  assumed  that  the 
religion  of  Jahveh  had  stigmatized  such  acts  as  sins 
from  the  remotest  antiquity.2  Their  condemnation  as 

1  Addis,  Baentsch,  Barton,  Bennett,  Benzinger,  Bertholet,  Budde, 
S.  A.  Cook,  Cornill,  Guthe,  Holzinger,  Kuenen,  McNeile,  Marti, 
Matthes,  Montefiore,  G.  F.  Moore,  Oort,  Paton,  Smend,  W.  R.  Smith, 
H.  P.  Smith,  Stade,  Steuernagel,  Thomas,  Wellhausen,  and  doubtless 
many  others. 

2  Rabbinical  tradition  met  the  difficulty  by  assuming  the  existence 
of  the  seven  so-called  Noachian  laws,  six  of  which  were  supposed  to 
have  been  enjoined  upon  Adam.  Among  them  are  five  prohibitions  of 
the  decalogue,  nos.  2,  3,  5,  6,  and  7. 


ORIGIN  OF  THE   DECALOGUE  89 

wrongs  committed  against  the  social  group  must  have 
attended  the  earliest  manifestations  of  the  moral  in- 
stinct even  in  the  man  of  the  stone  age. 

The  disposition  of  Hebrew  bibliographers  to  ascribe 
the  origins  of  their  social  and  religious  institutions  to 
Moses  has  a  reverse  as  well  as  an  obverse  side.  If  they 
dated  later  origins  back  to  him,  they  probably  also 
dated  some  earlier  origins  up  to  him.  The  separate 
history  of  individual  precepts  of  the  decalogue  cer- 
tainly reaches  beyond  Moses  and  beyond  Jahvism. 
But  with  respect  to  the  entire  decalogue  it  would  be 
much  more  daring  than  true  to  assume  that  there  was 
a  sufficiently  long  pre-Mosaic  Hebrew  moral  develop- 
ment to  have  made  possible  the  compilation  of  such 
a  set  of  precepts  by  Moses  in  the  fourteenth  or  thir- 
teenth century  B.C. 

Besides,  there  is  evidence  which  indicates  that  the 
process  of  instituting  and  compiling  decalogues  has 
been  gradual  and  changeful.  The  religion  of  Israel 
knew  more  than  one  decalogue,  and  at  least  two  variant 
editions  of  the  same  decalogue.  As  early  as  the  fifth 
century  a.d.  an  anonymous  Greek  theologian  *  credited 
Moses  with  the  writing  of  two  decalogues,  one  in  the 
twentieth,  the  other  in  the  thirty-fourth  chapter  of 
Exodus.  Since  then  others  have  noted  the  existence  of 
these  two  completely  dissimilar  sets  of  ten  command- 
ments. The  German  poet  Goethe  was  one  who  dis- 
covered the  fact  during  his  student  days,  and  made  it 
1  Cf.  Nestle,  Miscellcn,  ZAW  (1904),  p.  134. 


9o  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

the  subject  of  his  inaugural  disputation,  maintaining 
that  the  thirty-fourth  chapter  of  Exodus  contained 
the  original  ten  commandments.  The  faculty  at  Strass- 
burg  refused  to  publish  his  dissertation,  so  he  em- 
bodied the  substance  of  his  discovery  in  an  anonymous 
article  two  years  later.1 

The  most  striking  characteristic  of  the  above-men- 
tioned decalogue  is  its  ritual  character.  We  shall  there- 
fore refer  to  it  as  the  ritual  decalogue,  to  distinguish 
it  from  the  standard  decalogue,  which  is  chiefly  moral. 
Some  have  found  evidence  of  superior  age  in  the  simple 
fact  that  the  former  does  concern  itself  with  ritual. 
But  this  fact  is  not  a  safe  criterion  of  age,  for  the  ele- 
ments of  social  morality  must  have  arisen  at  least  as 
early  as  most  of  the  surviving  ceremonial  regulations. 
Nor  is  the  fact  of  its  inclusion  in  the  J  document  more 
than  presumptive  evidence  of  antiquity.  More  fruit- 
ful is  the  enquiry  how  early  ethical,  rather  than  ritual, 
requirements  were  held  to  be  of  the  essence  of  religion. 
The  answer  to  this  question  cannot  be  doubtful.  The 
change  of  emphasis  from  the  ritual  to  the  ethical  in 
Israel's  religion  was  effected  by  the  prophets  of  the 
eighth  century.  Therefore  the  ethical  decalogue  is  cer- 
tainly the  more  recent. 

Examined  in  detail  the  precepts  of  the  ritual  dec- 
alogue are  found  to  have  a  background  of  agricultural 
life.  The  most  important  observances  of  the  peasant 
religion  of  Palestine  were  included  among  these  pre- 

1  Zwei  wichtige  bisher  unerorterte  Fragen,  1773. 


ORIGIN  OF  THE   DECALOGUE        91 

cepts.  The  chapter  in  question  expressly  mentions 
"ten  words."  *  Since  this  decalogue  now  contains 
twelve  or  thirteen  commandments  we  must  suppose 
that  it  has  undergone  editing  by  later  hands.  Omit- 
ting, as  the  most  probable  additions,  the  Sabbath  com- 
mandment, and  the  one  requiring  all  Hebrew  males 
to  appear  before  Jahveh  thrice  a  year,  the  following 
list2  results:  — 

1 .  Thou  shalt  not  prostrate  thyself  before  any  other 

god. 

2.  Thou  shalt  make  thee  no  molten  gods. 

3.  Thou  shalt  keep  the  feast  of  unleavened  bread. 

4.  Every  first-born  is  mine. 

5.  The  feast  of  weeks  thou  shalt  observe. 

6.  And  the  feast  of  ingathering  at  the  turn  of  the 

year. 

7.  Thou  shalt  not  offer  the  blood  of  my  sacrifice  with 

leaven. 

8.  The  offering  of  the  Passover  shall  not  be  left 

until  the  morning. 

9.  The  best  of  the  firstlings  of  thy  ground  thou  shalt 

bring  to  the  house  of  Jahveh  thy  God. 
10.  Thou  shalt  not  seethe  a  kid  in  its  mother's  milk. 
No  one  familiar  with  the  religion  of  the  great  prophets 
from  Amos  to  Jeremiah  would  consider  this  decalogue 

1  Ex.  34:28. 

2  Some  omit  the  Sabbath  commandment  and  no.  2  on  the  ground 
that  these  do  not  occur  in  what  looks  like  a  repetition  of  this  decalogue 
in  Ex.  23: 10-19;  still  others  seek  to  preserve  the  number  ten  by  omit- 
ting nos.  5  and  6,  and  retaining  the  Sabbath  commandment  and  the 
one  requiring  males  to  appear  before  Jahveh  thrice  a  year. 


92  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT 

a  summary  of  the  cardinal  points  of  their  preach- 
ing. On  the  contrary,  observances  of  the  ritual  de- 
nounced by  these  prophets  are  here  singled  out  for 
special  enforcement.  It  can,  therefore,  hardly  have 
originated  in  religious  circles  to  which  Amos  and 
Isaiah  belonged.  On  the  other  hand,  the  importance 
attached  to  agricultural  festivals  (nos.  3,  5,  and  6) 
makes  it  certain  that  this  decalogue  cannot  have 
originated  with  Moses.  Such  commands  would  have 
been  worse  than  meaningless  to  nomads,  who  not  only 
had  no  experience  of  agriculture,  but  despised  it  as  a 
mode  of  life.  For  details  upon  this  aspect  of  the  prob- 
lem the  reader  is  referred  to  the  chapter  on  Israel's 
Moral  Beginnings. 

There  falls  into  the  scale  as  an  additional  considera- 
tion the  fact  that  the  command,  "All  that  open  the 
womb  are  mine,"  was  understood  to  involve  child 
sacrifice.  This  is  shown  by  the  later  practice  of  sub- 
stituting an  animal,  by  the  continuance  of  child  sac- 
rifice until  Jeremiah's  time,  by  the  latter's  express 
repudiation  of  it  as  a  command  of  Jahveh,  as  well  as 
by  Ezekiel's  acceptance  of  it  as  such,  and  by  the  arch- 
aeological evidence  of  recent  excavations  in  Palestine. 
Even  defenders  of  the  traditional  Mosaic  authorship  of 
the  Pentateuch  might  be  willing,  one  would  suppose, 
to  clear  Moses  of  any  share  in  the  giving  of  such  a 
decalogue.  Its  character  is  best  explained  by  suppos- 
ing it  to  be  a  modified  survival  of  that  peasant  religion 
of  Palestine  which  was  a  blending  of  Israelite  and 


ORIGIN   OF  THE  DECALOGUE        93 

Canaanite  cults  —  a  mixture  against  which  the  eighth- 
century  prophets  and  the  Deuteronomists  waged  such 
a  relentless  war.  Indeed,  the  conclusion  of  the  Deu- 
teronomic  edition  of  the  decalogue,  with  the  statement 
that  Jahveh  "added  no  more,"1  may  have  been  in- 
tended to  discredit  other  and  differing  forms  of  the 
decalogue  which  were  known  to  exist.  It  must  not  be 
supposed,  however,  that  the  Jahvist  originated  the 
ritual  decalogue  which  now  bears  his  name.  On  the 
contrary,  literary  criticism  shows  that  he  found  it  a 
part  of  the  tradition  which  came  to  him  out  of  the 
past. 

Turning  now  to  the  two  variant  forms  of  the  stand- 
ard decalogue,  preserved  in  Ex.  20  :  1-17  and  Dt.  5  : 
1-22,  we  are  bound  to  raise  the  question  of  its  origin. 
The  tendency  of  recent  critical  investigations  is  to 
regard  this  decalogue  as  an  original  part  neither  of 
Deuteronomy  nor  of  E  in  Exodus.  The  evidence,  best 
summarized  by  Steuernagel,  indicates  that  it  was  first 
inserted  by  an  editor  in  the  fifth  chapter  of  Deuter- 
onomy, and  that  after  the  exile  a  P  redactor  inserted 
it  in  the  JE  narrative  between  Ex.  19  :  25  and  20  :  18. 
The  time  of  its  inclusion  in  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy, 
however,  is  not  necessarily  the  date  of  its  origin.  We 
shall  find  reason  to  think  that  this  ethical  decalogue, 
also,  has  had  a  long  history,  in  which  it  passed  through 
various  stages.  Its  present  form  may  not  be  earlier  than 
the  Deuteronomic  period,  but  it  probably  contains  a 

1  Dt.  5:22. 


94  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

substantial  nucleus  which  is  very  much  older.  Be- 
sides the  two  variant  forms  of  the  decalogue,  mentioned 
above,  there  is  a  third  which  stands  about  midway  be- 
tween the  two.  It  was  found  on  a  papyrus  fragment  in 
Egypt  a  few  years  ago.  Cook  1  assigns  it  to  the  early 
part  of  the  second  century  a.d. 

Before  taking  up  the  discussion  of  the  individual 
precepts  of  the  decalogue  two  general  questions  should 
receive  consideration:  (i)  Were  all  or  particular  per- 
sons in  the  Hebrew  community  addressed  in  the  dec- 
alogue? (2)  Were  the  precepts  supposed  to  have  a 
universal,  or  only  a  tribal  and  national  range  of  ap- 
plication? 

A  number  of  considerations  indicate  that  the  deca- 
logue is  addressed  only  to  adult  men,  and  more  partic- 
ularly to  those  who  were  heads  of  households.  The 
second  person  masculine  singular  is  employed  in 
"thou  shalt,"  but  this  grammatical  fact  cannot  be 
urged  here,  because  the  masculine  gender  in  Hebrew 
may  be  employed  to  cover  both  sexes.  More  heavily 
weighs  the  fact  that  some  commands,  like  the  fourth, 
seventh,  and  tenth,  contemplate  men  only.  Since 
women  were  not  held  competent  to  qualify  as  wit- 
nesses, or  to  exercise  the  religious  rites  and  functions 
of  the  Hebrew  cultus,  the  first,  second,  third,  and 
ninth,  also,  are  addressed  to  men.  The  Hebrew  legal 
regime  was  one  in  which  men  alone  figured,  because 

1  PSBA  xxv,  p.  34  ff.  The  writing  is  in  an  early  form  of  Hebrew 
character.  Though  only  a  fragment,  it  is  the  earliest  Biblical  manu- 
script of  any  kind  in  existence. 


ORIGIN  OF  THE   DECALOGUE        95 

women  were  owned  and  had  no  independent  social 
responsibility.  Analogous,  among  the  ancient  Arabs, 
is  the  case  of  the  ten  commandments  of  the  Fitra, 
which,  as  Wellhausen  observes,  "  appear  to  have  con- 
cerned only  the  man,  not  the  woman."  1 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  observance  of  the  deca- 
logue was  at  first  obligatory  only  among  Hebrews  and 
in  so  far  as  it  related  to  Hebrews.  They  alone  could  be 
expected  to  receive  and  observe  commands  relating 
to  Israel's  cultus.  Nor  did  foreign  peoples  come  within 
the  purview  of  its  social  benefits  until  Hebrew  religion 
ceased  to  be  national.  In  other  words,  the  morality 
of  the  decalogue  was  at  first  a  group  morality,  since 
the  "  neighbour  "  was  always  understood  to  be  a  fellow 
Hebrew.  The  facts  upon  which  these  statements  rest 
are  abundantly  set  forth  in  other  connections,  and 
need  not  detain  us  here.  We  are  ready  now  to  con- 
sider the  different  commandments  individually. 

I.   Thou  shall  have  no  oilier  gods  besides  me. 

The  first  four  commandments  relate  to  the  cultus. 
This  fact  must  be  taken  into  account  if  one  seeks  to 
assign  an  earlier  origin  to  the  ritual  decalogue  because 
it  is  so  exclusively  concerned  with  the  cultus.  It  is,  as 
a  matter  of  fact,  only  a  preponderant  emphasis  upon 
morals  that  distinguishes  the  moral  from  the  ritual 
decalogue.  If  the  moral  decalogue  were  concerned  ex- 
clusively with  morals,  as  the  ritual  decalogue  is  con- 

1  Reste  arab.  Ileid.  (1897),  p.  168. 


96  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

cerned  exclusively  with  the  cultus,  it  might  be  possible 
to  maintain  that  the  two  decalogues  were  contempo- 
raneous; that  one  was  intended  to  inculcate  the  duties 
of  worship,  the  other,  of  social  morality.  As  the  facts 
stand  this  claim  could  be  maintained  only  by  suppos- 
ing that  the  ritual  decalogue  was  a  possession  of  the 
Canaanite  population  absorbed  by  the  Hebrews  after 
the  conquest,  and  that  the  standard  decalogue  goes 
back  to  distinctively  Hebrew  origins.  But  since  Ca- 
naanite civilization  was  much  more  ancient  than 
Israel's  religion,  the  ritual  decalogue  would  still  be 
the  older  in  point  of  origin. 

The  prohibition  of  the  worship  of  other  gods  ob- 
viously does  not  constitute  monotheism,  but  monola- 
try.  The  framers  of  this  decalogue  did  not  question 
the  actual  existence  of  other  gods.  Otherwise  they 
would  have  declared  their  unreality  to  clinch  the  inter- 
diction of  their  worship.  If  worshipped  by  Israelites, 
they  become  real  rivals  of  Jahveh  and  thus  excite  his 
jealousy.  Jealousy  aroused  by  a  nonentity  is  a  thing 
too  absurd  to  consider.  The  motive  of  jealousy  is 
introduced  as  an  amplification  of  the  second  com- 
mandment, but  really  concerns  the  first.  The  naive 
endowing  of  God  with  such  an  ignoble  passion  has 
moral  difficulties  of  its  own  with  which  we  have  dealt 
elsewhere. 

Monotheism,  even  in  Hebrew  thought,  came  by 
stages,  and  not  as  a  flash  from  the  blue.  To  some  of 
these  stages  we  have  called  attention  in  the  chapter  on 


ORIGIN  OF  THE   DECALOGUE        97 

the  Monojahvism  of  Deuteronomy.  It  is  a  question 
whether  even  Jeremiah  had  fully  grasped  the  truth  of 
God's  universality,  although  it  lies  implicit  in  his 
thought.  Men  who  for  the  first  time  consciously  attain 
to  a  new  conception  of  God  and  the  world  are  accus- 
tomed to  enlarge  upon  the  fact.  Had  the  thought  of 
Jahveh's  sole  existence  not  been  a  novel  idea  to  Deu- 
tero- Isaiah  he  would  hardly  have  exploited  it  with  so 
much  enthusiasm  during  the  exile. 

However,  the  form  of  the  first  commandment  was 
found  sufficiently  elastic  to  admit  of  a  monotheistic 
interpretation  after  monotheism  had  become  an  ac- 
complished fact.  Judaism  had  recourse  to  the  Shema  l 
"Hear,  O  Israel,  Jahveh  our  God  is  one  Jahveh,"  as 
a  better  formula  for  its  belief.  But  it  should  be  ob- 
served that  the  Jews  do  not  follow  the  text  of  the  pas- 
sage, since  in  liturgical  use  they  substitute  "Adonay" 
(Lord)  for  the  ineffable  name  "Jahveh."  This  change 
really  makes  of  the  Shema  a  statement  of  monotheism, 
and  the  King  James  version  adopted  this  interpreta- 
tion in  its  rendering:  "Hear,  O  Israel,  the  Lord  our 
God  is  one  Lord."  But,  historically  considered,  the 
first  commandment,  as  well  as  the  Shema,  are  products 
of  a  time  when  other  gods  still  were  realities  to  the 
average  Israelite.  The  first  commandment  asserts 
that  Israel's  God  demands  exclusive  devotion,  while 
the  Shema  asserts  that  Jahveh  is  not  many,  but  one. 

1  Dt.  6:4.  So  called  from  the  opening  word  in  Hebrew  for  "Hear." 


98  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

2.  Thou  shall  not  make  unto  thee  a  graven  image. 

The  ritual  decalogue  prohibited  only  "molten  im- 
ages," i.e.,  images  of  metal  cast  in  a  mould  by  a  founder. 
The  term  in  Hebrew  is  massekah;  both  the  name  and 
the  thing  were  probably  borrowed  from  the  Canaanites. 
The  standard  decalogue  prohibits  the  graven  image, 
or  pesel,  which  was  commonly  made  of  wood. 

Both  kinds  of  images  were  used  in  ancient  Israel 
without  offence,  and  without  betraying  any  con- 
sciousness that  Moses  had  forbidden  them.  Micah 
the  Danite  is  represented  as  employing  a  descendant 
of  Moses,  even,  to  perform  the  duties  of  a  priest  of 
Jahveh  and  as  such  he  operates  with  a  molten  as  well 
as  with  a  carved  image.1  Another  tradition  mentions  a 
teraphim  in  the  house  of  David  as  if  it  had  been  some- 
thing unobjectionable  that  could  be  found  in  any 
Israelite  household.2  Rachel  stole  her  father's  tera- 
phim and  Laban,  in  seeking  to  recover  the  image,  re- 
ferred to  it  as  "my  god." 3  A  passage  in  Hosea  alludes 
with  evident  regret  to  a  time  when  the  sacred  stone 
pillars,  ephods,  and  teraphim  would  be  unknown  in 
Israel.4  He  regarded  them  as  essential  to  the  religious 
observances  of  his  people. 

1  Judg.  17;  cf.  18:30.  2  I  Sam.  19:9/. 

3  Gen.  31 :  19,  30.  Some  regard  the  teraphim  as  a  relic  of  ancestor 
worship  corresponding  to  the  penates,  or  household  gods  of  the  Romans. 
Gressmann  advocates  the  view  that  the  teraphim  was  a  mask  worn  by 
the  priest  when  he  impersonated  the  deity  (Mose  u.  seine  Zeit,  p.  249). 
Whatever  it  was,  its  character  and  use  should  have  put  it  under  the 
ban  of  image  worship  on  the  supposition  of  a  Mosaic  origin  of  the  second 
commandment. 

4  Hos.  3:4.    Deuteronomy  condemned  them  all  as  idolatrous. 


ORIGIN   OF  THE   DECALOGUE        99 

But  the  most  conclusive  evidence  against  a  Mosaic 
prohibition  of  images  is  afforded  by  the  incident  of  the 
bronze  serpent.  The  Deuteronomic  editor  of  the  Books 
of  Kings, *  in  recording  the  destruction  of  the  serpent  as 
an  idolatrous  object,  declares  it  was  the  one  "that 
Moses  had  made."  An  E  redactor  in  Numbers  2  nar- 
rates that  Moses  made  it  in  obedience  to  the  command 
of  Jahveh.  Tradition  is  concerned  here,  doubtless, 
with  a  symbol  employed  after  the  manner  of  sympa- 
thetic magic.  But  it  must  be  clear  that  an  age  which 
could  see  nothing  wrong  in  ascribing  the  origin  of  such 
an  object  to  Moses  had  no  such  scruples  about  the  use 
of  images  as  would  have  been  created  by  the  second 
commandment. 

Finally,  the  state  religion  of  Ephraim  countenanced 
the  representation  of  Jahveh  by  portable  images  of  a 
bull  overlaid  with  gold,  contemptuously  called  "golden 
calves"  by  the  prophets.  Such  images  constituted  the 
principal  equipment  of  the  great  Israelitish  sanctuaries 
at  Dan,  Bethel,  Samaria,  and  probably  Gilgal.  Juda- 
ites  participated  more  or  less  in  the  cultus  at  Bethel. 
If  Amos  and  Hosea  had  been  aware  of  a  Mosaic  pro- 
hibition of  images,  it  is  difficult  to  account  for  their 
failure  to  invoke  its  aid  in  their  campaign  against 
these  bull  images,  especially  [ since  Amos  appeals  to 
the  Mosaic  period  in  support  of  his  antisacrificial 
views. 

In  our  opinion  this  array  of  facts  points  clearly  in  the 

1  II  Kings.  18:4.  2  Num.  21:  8. 


ioo  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

direction  of  a  post-Mosaic  origin  of  the  commandment 
against  images.  It  also  accounts  for  the  consciousness 
of  novelty  which  informs  the  Deuteronomist's  elab- 
orate argument  on  behalf  of  an  imageless  worship.1 
It  should  be  observed,  on  general  grounds,  that  a  pro- 
hibition against  images  would  not  be  issued  in  advance 
of  a  people's  practical  acquaintance  with  their  use. 
Such  a  prohibition  must  have  come  as  the  product  of  a 
religious  reaction.  We  probably  are  close  to  the  facts 
if  we  seek  the  beginning  of  this  reaction  in  the  work 
of  the  eighth-century  prophets,  and  its  culmination 
in  Deuteronomy. 

But  there  may  be  truth  in  the  Deuteronomist's 
assumption  that  the  earliest  form  of  Jahvism  was 
imageless.  It  is  generally  conceded  that  the  employ- 
ment of  images  of  gods  belongs  to  a  comparatively 
advanced  stage  in  the  history  and  development  of  re- 
ligion. In  so  far  Eusebius  was  right  when  he  said  that 
"the  oldest  peoples  had  no  idols."  But  it  would  be 
difficult  to  prove  that  the  Israelites,  or  any  part  of 
them,  were  in  the  aniconic  stage  of  development  in  the 
days  of  Moses,  especially  since  they  were  surrounded 
by  peoples  who  had  long  been  familiar  with  the  use  of 
images.  In  any  case  a  religion  that  is  imageless  be- 
cause it  is  primitive,  and  one  that  is  imageless  because 
of  advanced  theoretical  considerations,  are  two  totally 
different  things. 

1  Dt.  4:12/. 


ORIGIN  OF  THE   DECALOGUE      101 

3.  Thou  shall  not  take  the  name  of  Jahveh,  thy  God,  in 
vain. 

This  is  the  common  English  rendering  of  the  third 
commandment,  but  the  Hebrew  text  leaves  the  door 
open  for  other  interpretations.  Literally  translated  it 
reads,  "Thou  shalt  not  lift  up  the  name  of  Jahveh,  thy 
God,  unto  naught."  What  does  this  mean?  The  an- 
swers vary  greatly.  Here  are  some:  that  it  prohibits 
the  use  of  the  name  of  Jahveh  in  connection  with  triv- 
ial matters ;  that  it  is  directed  against  profane  swear- 
ing ;  that  it  forbids  the  use  of  the  divine  name  in  magic, 
or  divination. 

The  above  are  the  most  plausible  of  the  current  in- 
terpretations, but  they  are  all  open  to  serious  objec- 
tions. Paton l  has  made  out  a  strong  case  for  the  view 
that  the  Hebrew  text  of  the  commandment  should  be 
translated,  "Thou  shalt  not  cry  aloud  the  name  of 
Jahveh,  thy  God,  when  thou  bringest  naught."  It  was 
customary  to  invoke  the  name  of  the  deity  in  connec- 
tion with  an  offering,  and  this,  in  Old  Testament 
phraseology,  was  "to  call  upon  the  name  of  Jahveh."  2 
The  original  intention  of  the  third  commandment, 
then,  would  have  been  to  set  up  the  rule,  No  sacrifice, 
no  worship,  which  accords  substantially  with  the  old 
injunction  "None  shall  appear  before  me  empty."  3 

If  this  was  the  original  meaning  and  purpose  of  the 
third  commandment,  it  hardly  reflects  the  mind  of  the 

1  JBL  (1903),  p.  201  ff.  *  I  Kings  18:23/.;  cf.  Ps.  16:4. 

3  Ex.  34:20. 


102  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

great  pre-exilic  prophets  who  scorned  the  thought  that 
sacrifices  were  the  essential  element  in  acceptable  wor- 
ship. On  the  other  hand,  it  must  belong  to  a  time  when 
heads  of  families,  as  in  the  case  of  Elkanah,  still  exer- 
cised the  function  of  sacrifice.  After  the  ritual  of  sac- 
rifice had  become  the  exclusive  prerogative  of  the 
priesthood,  such  a  commandment  addressed  to  male 
Israelites  would  have  lost  much  of  its  original  signifi- 
cance. 

Since  the  Deuteronomic  reformation  under  Josiah 
inaugurated  the  changes  that  took  the  sacrificial  cultus 
out  of  the  hands  of  the  common  man  and  made  it  a 
priestly  function,  it  is  conceivable  that  the  third  com- 
mandment underwent  a  corresponding  change  of 
meaning  at  that  time.  The  form  of  the  precept  and 
the  fact  that  Semitic  antiquity  was  always  living  at 
close  quarters  with  superstitious  dread  of  deities' 
names,  determined  the  subsequent  interpretation  of 
the  third  commandment.  At  any  rate,  the  belief  arose 
that  it  was  directed  against  all  misuse  of  the  divine 
name  Jahveh,  and  this  tradition  may  reach  back  to 
the  Priests'  Code,  whose  influence  greatly  fostered 
the  fear  of  sacrilege  in  connection  with  the  use  of  the 
divine  name. 

The  early  Israelite  naively  thought  that  his  national 
deity  must  have  a  personal  name  by  which  he  was  dis- 
tinguished from  other  deities.  The  earlier  writings  of 
the  Old  Testament  show  that  there  existed  no  fear  of 
its  use  in  worship,  or  in  connection  with  the  affairs 


ORIGIN  OF  THE  DECALOGUE      103 

of  daily  life.  It  was  natural,  however,  to  invest  the  di- 
vulging of  this  name  with  the  same  perils  and  solemni- 
ties which  in  early  human  societies  attended  the  giving 
and  use  of  personal  names.  One's  real  name  is  made 
known  only  to  intimates  who  will  not  use  it  in  magic 
to  the  disadvantage  of  the  bearer.  Jahveh  also  makes 
known  his  name  to  intimates  and  votaries  only;  ac- 
cording to  the  earliest  traditions  to  the  patriarchs,1 
according  to  E  and  P  for  the  first  time  to  Moses.2 

The  witch  of  Endor,  according  to  the  ancient  He- 
brew chronicler,  had  the  power  to  summon  the  shade 
{elohim  =  divinity)  of  Samuel  to  appear  against  his  will. 
This,  supposedly,  was  done  by  invoking  his  name. 
But  citing  so  powerful  a  being  as  Jahveh  in  non-ritual 
connections  was  regarded  as  a  perilous  adventure. 
Amos,  in  his  graphic  picture  of  the  lone  survivor  of  the 
family  hiding  from  God's  wrath  in  the  innermost  part 
of  the  house,  lets  him  say,  "Hush,  do  not  speak  the 
name  of  Jahveh,"3  lest  his  attention  be  attracted  and 
worse  befall. 

When  the  earlier  and  cruder  superstitions  con- 
nected with  the  use  of  the  divine  name  had  passed 
away  with  the  institutional  innovations  of  the  time 
between  Josiah  and  Ezra,  a  new  kind  of  awe  of  the 
Name  began  to  flourish  in  the  soil  of  Jewish  legalism. 
The  prohibition  of  the  third  commandment  probably 
was  now  applied  to  all  extra-ritual  utterance  of  the 
name  Jahveh.    So  rigid  did  this  taboo  of  the  name 

1  Gen.  4:26;  cf.  Gen.  6:2-8.         2  Ex.  3: 14;  6:3.  3  Am.  6:10. 


104  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

become  that  about  300  B.C.  it  was  no  longer  uttered 
in  Jewish  synagogues,  the  substitute  "  Adonay"  (Lord) 
being  used  instead.  Leviticus  prescribed  that  "one 
who  blasphemeth  the  name  of  Jahveh  shall  surely  be 
put  to  death."1  It  is  a  significant  fact  that  in  the 
Septuagint  Greek  translation  of  the  Pentateuch  this 
is  rendered  "one  who  nameth  the  name  of  the  Lord 
shall  surely  be  put  to  death."  The  inference  is  that 
to  the  Jews  of  the  third  century  B.C.  mere  utterance  of 
the  name  Jahveh  was  blasphemy. 

In  consequence  of  this  curious  development  the  cor- 
rect vocalization  of  the  four  consonants  JHVH  re- 
mained for  a  long  time  a  matter  of  uncertainty;2 
mystic  potencies  imputed  to  the  real  name  of  him 
who  was  no  longer  a  national  deity,  but  the  God  of 
the  world,  revived  its  use  in  magic  practices,  and  gave 
rise  to  a  kind  of  philosophy  of  the  Name  which  may 
be  traced  into  the  New  Testament.3 

4.  Observe  (var.  remember)  the  Sabbath  day  to  keep  it 
holy. 
Passages  in  the  JE  traditions  which  relate  to  the 
earlier  Sabbath  are  not  entirely  free  from  the  suspicion 
of  having  been  edited  so  as  to  accommodate  them, 
where  necessary,  to  a  later  form  of  Sabbath  observ- 
ance.   The  writings  of  the  eighth-century  prophets, 

1  Lev.  24: 16. 

2  Cf.  Arnold,  JBL  (1905),  vol.  xxiv,  p.  107/.;  Moore,  OTSS,  vol.  I, 

P-  143/. 

3  Heitmuller,  Im  Namen  Jesu. 


ORIGIN  OF  THE   DECALOGUE     105 

therefore,  contain  the  earliest  undoubted  references  to 
the  Hebrew  Sabbath.1  In  them  it  has  the  earmark  of 
a  lunar  feast-day  and  is  always  paired  with  the  new- 
moon  festival,  an  association  which  it  retained  also  in 
the  language  of  writers  who  lived  after  the  Sabbath 
had  been  detached  from  the  moon  phases. 

If  the  Sabbath  was  originally  a  real  partner  of  the 
new  moon,  it  means  that  there  was  only  one  Sabbath 
in  a  month.  Otherwise,  how  could  the  phrase  "new 
moon  and  sabbath"  originate?  The  supposition  that 
the  Sabbath  here  means  the  seventh  day  of  the  week, 
without  reference  to  moon  phases,  comes  to  grief 
against  the  fact  that  then  the  new  moon  and  the 
Sabbath  would  occasionally  have  coincided.  Neither 
does  it  commend  itself  to  suppose  that  the  new  moon 
was  the  first  and  most  important  of  the  monthly  group 
of  four  sabbaths  determined  by  the  moon  phases,  for 
then  the  phrase  should  have  been  "new  moon  and 
sabbaths."  What  is  more,  the  new  moon  is  nowhere 
called  a  sabbath,  but  is  always  distinguished  from  it. 
We,  therefore,  are  compelled  to  look  for  a  monthly 
lunar  feast-day,  coordinate  with  the  new  moon,  which 
was  called  Sabbath.  The  only  other  distinctive  lunar 
phenomenon  of  the  month  was  the  full  moon,  and 
our  next  step  must  be  to  enquire  whether  the  day  of 
the  full  moon  had  special  religious  significance  in  Se- 
mitic antiquity. 

Ten  years  ago  Pinches 2  discovered  and  published  a 

1  Am.  8:4 Jf.;  IIos.  2:11;  Is.  1:13.  ■  PSBA  (1904),  p.  55#- 


106  THE  OLD.  TESTAMENT 

lexicographical  Babylonian  tablet,  containing  a  list  of 
the  days  of  the  month,  in  which  the  term  shabattu  is 
applied  to  the  fifteenth  day  of  the  month.  Since  the 
Babylonians  reckoned  a  lunar  month  of  about  thirty 
days,  the  middle  of  the  month,  or  the  fifteenth,  would 
be  the  full  moon.  This  is  confirmed  by  a  line  in  the 
Babylonian  Story  of  Creation  1  in  which  the  moon  is 
addressed  thus:  "On  the  fourteenth  [day]  thou  shalt 
be  equal  [in  both]  halves."2  The  testimony  of  the 
somewhat  mutilated  line  is  still  stronger  if  we  read 
with  Pinches  and  Zimmern,  "On  the  Sabbath  thou 
shalt  be  equal  in  both  halves." 

What  was  the  character  of  this  day  among  the  Baby- 
lonians? Another  cuneiform  tablet  contains  the  equa- 
tion tim  n&kh  libbi  =  shabattu,  which  means,  literally 
translated,  "day  of  rest  of  the  heart  =  sabbath." 
There  is  general  agreement  that  the  phrase  which 
describes  this  sabbath  does  not  refer  to  cessation  from 
labor,  but  designates  it  as  a  day  of  penance  on  which 
an  angry  or  capricious  deity  must  be  pacified.  The 
full-moon  period,  therefore,  was  a  critical  and  porten- 
tous day  in  the  astral  theology  of  the  Babylonians  and 
was  known  as  the  "sabbath."  The  fact  that  numerous 
existing  contract  tablets  are  dated  on  Babylonian  sab- 
baths tends  to  show  that  they  were  not  observed  as 
rest  days. 

On  the  strength  of  these  facts  Meinhold 3  and  Beer, 4 

1  Tablet,  v,  18.  2  So  Ungnad  in  Gressmann's  AOTB. 

3  Sabbat  u.  Woche  (1905).  *  Der  Mischna-tractat  Sabbat. 


ORIGIN  OF  THE  DECALOGUE      107 

following  a  suggestion  of  Zimmern,  have  worked  upon 
the  theory  that  the  early  Hebrew  Sabbath  was  origi- 
nally the  day  of  the  full  moon,  and  that  it  had  at 
first  nothing  to  do  with  the  seventh  day  of  rest.  There 
is  much  presumptive  evidence  in  favor  of  this  view, 
and  it  is  not  without  support  in  the  Old  Testament. 
The  P  tradition  in  Exodus  makes  the  Hebrews  enter 
the  wilderness  of  Sin  on  the  day  of  the  full  moon. 
This  was  the  region  of  Sinai  where  the  full-moon  cultus 
still  survived  among  Arabs  in  the  sixth  century.  The 
fact  that  Amos  mentions  the  Sabbath  of  his  time  as 
a  day  of  cessation  from  labor  and  trade  is  no  objection 
to  identification  with  the  full  moon,  for  he  says  the 
same  of  the  new  moon.  Apparently  the  celebration 
of  both  differed  in  no  essential  respect  from  the  ob- 
servance of  other  Hebrew  festivals,  marked  chiefly 
by  slaughter-sacrifices  and  the  joyous  abandon  of  the 
accompanying  feasts.  Such  celebrations  of  necessity 
involved  cessation  from  labor.  As  Strabo1  observed, 
"The  Greeks  and  barbarians  have  this  in  common, 
that  they  accompany  their  sacred  rites  by  a  festal 
remission  of  labor."  This  accounts  for  the  fact  that 
domestic  animals  and  servants  were  considered  avail- 
able for  journeys  on  the  Sabbath  as  well  as  on  the  new 
moon.  Yet  neither  a  journey2  nor  changing  of  guards 
in  the  temple3  would  have  been  admissible  if  rest  had 
been  the  emphatic  element  in  the  observance  of  the 
day. 

1  x,  3:9.  2  II  Kings,  4:22/.  3  II  Kings,  11:4  ff. 


108  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

A  matter  of  much  significance  is  the  apparently 
hostile  attitude  of  the  pre-exilic  prophets  toward  the 
Sabbath  of  their  time.  They  include  it  among  the 
sacrificial  feasts  which  Jahveh  hates.1  If  it  was  a  day 
of  rest,  its  denunciation  by  these  humanitarians  is 
hardly  intelligible.  But  if  it  was  a  lunar  feast-day, 
having  a  recognized  connection  with  the  Babylonian- 
Canaanite  astral  religion,  their  hostility  is  easily  ex- 
plained. Since  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy  represents  a 
strong  reaction  against  astral  religion,  and  presents 
the  teaching  of  the  prophets  in  practical  form,  its  com- 
plete omission  of  the  Sabbath,  as  well  as  of  the  new 
moon,  from  the  original  edition  of  the  book  is  a  most 
significant  fact.  It  seems  to  indicate  that  the  rest- 
day  Sabbath  was  still  unknown  when  the  book  was 
promulgated  in  621  B.C.,  and  that  the  lunar-feast  Sab- 
bath celebrated  on  the  full  moon  was  the  day  de- 
nounced by  the  prophets. 

The  probable  relation  between  the  Babylonian  full- 
moon  Sabbath  and  the  Hebrew  rest-day  Sabbath  has 
been  discussed  at  length  by  Morris  Jastrow.2  He 
finds  a  close  analogy  between  the  Babylonian  shabat- 
tum  as  a  critical  time  in  the  lunar  month,  and  the 
shabbathon  of  Lev.  23  :  32,  which  like  the  Babylonian 
Sabbath  was  invested  with  the  austerities  of  an  atone- 
ment day.  But  he  also  finds  that  though  there  are 
"traces  among  the  Hebrews  of  lucky  and  unlucky 

1  Is.  1:13;  Hos.  2:11;  probably  included  in  Am.  5:21. 
s  Hebrew  and  Babylonian  Traditions  (1914),  pp.  134-95. 


ORIGIN  OF  THE   DECALOGUE      109 

days,  of  a  significance  attached  to  periods  of  transition, 
of  the  importance  of  the  new  moon  and  of  the  full 
moon,  of  the  special  import  connected  with  the  number 
seven,  and  of  precautions  exercised  on  certain  days 
which  have  left  their  traces  in  some  of  the  Sabbath 
regulations  of  the  Pentateuchal  Codes,"  there  was  no 
parallel  development  of  the  Hebrew  rest-Sabbath  and 
the  Babylonian  propitiation-Sabbath  on  the  basis  of 
their  common  elements.  The  probable  reason  for  this 
we  have  already  indicated. 

Just  how  the  lunar-feast  Sabbath  was  made  over 
into  the  seventh  day  of  rest,  dissociated  from  the 
moon  phases,  still  is  obscure.  But  there  were  many 
radical  changes  just  before  and  during  the  exile,  and 
this  was  one  of  them.  Hardly  anything  seems  to  have 
been  taken  over  from  the  full-moon  Sabbath  except 
the  name.  In  the  observance  of  the  old  Sabbath,  ab- 
stention from  labor  was  incomplete  and  incidental  to 
the  celebration ;  in  the  new  Sabbath  it  was  the  essential 
thing  in  the  celebration.  The  Sabbath,  for  instance, 
was  a  day  suitable  for  journeys  in  old  Israel;  but  in 
New  Testament  times  travelling  was  reckoned  among 
the  things  that  were  strictly  forbidden  on  the  Sab- 
bath.1 In  fact  this  new  Sabbath  rapidly  underwent 
deterioration  from  a  day  of  release  from  labor  to  one 
on  which  it  was  labor  to  rest  as  prescribed.  The 
Deuteronomic  variant  of  the  Sabbath  commandment 
urges  only  humanitarian  motives  for  the  day's  ob- 

1  Mt.  24:20;  Josephus,  Ant.  xm,  8:4. 


no  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

servance ;  but  at  the  time  of  Nehemiah  it  had  become 
a  kind  of  ritual  requirement,  enforced  by  civil  au- 
thority. A  later  law  of  P  even  imposed  the  death- 
penalty  for  Sabbath-breaking.  The  creation-origin  of 
the  Sabbath  was  added  to  the  Exodus  edition  of  the 
decalogue  as  a  priestly  afterthought.  Similarly  P,  in 
the  first  chapter  of  Genesis,  arranged  the  creative 
acts  to  fit  the  scheme  of  a  weekly  cycle  which  in  his 
day  was  already  an  established  custom. 

In  consequence  of  post-exilic  developments,  in  which 
the  ritual  sanctity  of  the  day  was  increasingly  em- 
phasized, it  inevitably  lost  something  of  its  cheerful 
character.  The  modification  of  the  pre-exilic  local 
sacrificial  feasts,  from  joyous  social  functions  into  a 
solemn  ritual  act  of  the  priests  at  the  central  sanctu- 
ary, may  have  helped  to  inaugurate  this  tendency 
toward  an  austere  Sabbath.  Its  sanctity  was  thought 
of  as  something  inhering  in  the  day  itself,  which  was 
hedged  about  by  a  formidable  array  of  enactments  that 
in  some  circles  tended  to  make  the  day  a  burden  in- 
stead of  a  refreshment.  It  was  this  tendency  which 
Jesus  challenged  when  he  said  that  "the  sabbath  was 
made  for  man,  not  man  for  the  sabbath."  * 

We  may  briefly  summarize  the  history  of  the  Sab- 
bath as  follows:  its  origin  as  far  as  the  name  is  con- 
cerned goes  back  to  the  Sumerians.  The  Babylonians 
applied  the  name  to  the  full-moon  day  in  the  middle 
of  each  month  and  observed  it  as  a  propitiation  day. 

1  Mk.  2:  27. 


ORIGIN  OF  THE   DECALOGUE      in 

The  early  Israelite  Sabbath  seems,  also,  to  have  been 
a  full-moon  festival  and  a  day  of  joyous  feasting.  As 
such  it  figured  once  a  month,  like  the  new-moon  festi- 
val, in  the  sacrificial  cultus  which  the  pre-exilic  proph- 
ets denounced  because  of  its  Canaanite  associations. 
About  the  time  of  the  exile  a  seventh  day  of  rest, 
freed  from  association  with  moon  phases,  was  inaugu- 
rated and  called  the  Sabbath,  although  it  had  little  in 
common  with  the  earlier  institution  under  that  name. 

5.  Honour  thy  father  and  thy  mother. 

The  fifth  commandment  inculcates  the  duty  of  hon- 
oring one's  parents.  In  a  society  founded  so  com- 
pletely upon  family  organization  as  the  Hebraic,  the 
filial  obligation  set  forth  in  this  precept  undoubtedly 
belongs  to  a  time  more  ancient  than  that  of  Moses. 
Indeed,  the  question  must  be  raised  whether  in  its 
most  ancient  form  it  may  not  have  been  an  injunction 
to  pay  ritual  homage  to  the  manes  of  dead  parents. 

An  interesting  question  arises  from  the  coordinate 
mention  of  the  mother  with  the  father.  Since  the  Is- 
raelite family  was  polygamous,  the  children  all  claimed 
the  same  father,  but  not  the  same  mother.  Add  to  this 
the  fact  that  the  father  had  absolute  power  both  over 
the  mother  and  the  children,  and  it  becomes  appa- 
rent that  the  precept  could  not  have  been  understood 
to  teach  equal  obligations  toward  both  parents. 

Duty  toward  stepmothers  is  not  mentioned.  Yet  it 
was  not  in  the  case  of  Leah  and  Rachel  only  that  the 


112  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

question  of  this  relationship  arose,  for  the  Book  of 
Deuteronomy1  attempts  to  check  the  abuses  of  harem- 
favoritism  in  a  duogamous  family.  Under  the  condi- 
tions presupposed  there,  each  of  the  rival  wives  intri- 
guing to  advance  the  interests  of  her  own  offspring,  the 
inculcation  of  filial  duty  toward  a  stepmother  must 
have  seemed  a  hopeless  thing.  The  omission  may  re- 
ceive further  explanation  from  the  fact  that  the  first- 
born son's  stepmothers  were  anciently  inherited  by  him 
as  his  wives  when  his  father  died,  and  his  duties  toward 
them  consequently  came  under  a  different  head. 

Some  scholars  have  maintained  that  there  is  suffi- 
cient vestigial  evidence  to  assume  the  existence  of  a 
matrilinear  society  before  the  beginning  of  the  patri- 
linear. In  such  a  society  the  duties  of  filial  obligation 
could  have  had  for  their  object  only  the  mother,  since 
the  father  could  not  be  known.  But  the  Israelite  fam- 
ily, so  far  as  one  can  trace  its  history,  is  patrilinear  and, 
therefore,  it  can  be  a  matter  of  antiquarian  interest 
only  to  inquire  whether  the  mention  of  the  mother  be- 
side the  father  is  an  echo  from  a  matrilinear  period  of 
society. 

The  commandment  has  traditionally  been  under- 
stood to  apply  to  children  still  under  parental  au- 
thority. This  is  clearly  an  impossible  supposition. 
Under  the  type  of  family  organization  known  to  us  in 
Israel  the  father  alone  was  the  absolute  ruler  of  the 
family;  so  absolute,  in  fact,  that  it  took  on  all  the  quali- 

1  Dt.  21:15;  see  p.  247. 


ORIGIN   OF  THE   DECALOGUE      113 

ties  of  proprietary  ownership,  for  he  had  the  right  to 
sell  his  children  into  slavery  in  payment  for  his  debts. 
Actual  ownership  of  the  child  by  the  father  is  the  tacit 
assumption  behind  Jahveh's  alleged  request  that  Abra- 
ham sacrifice  his  son.  In  a  society  where  children  were 
independent  persons  with  inalienable  rights,  no  one 
could  ever  have  raised  the  question,  "Shall  I  give  my 
first-born  for  my  transgression,  the  fruit  of  my  body  for 
the  sin  of  my  soul?"  Obviously  the  Israelite  could  sell, 
or  offer  as  a  sacrificial  gift,  only  that  which  he  believed 
to  be  his  property. 

If  such  was  the  status  of  the  free-born  children  and 
their  mothers,  how  are  we  to  apply  this  commandment 
to  children  born  of  female  slaves  whom  the  head  of 
the  family  treated  as  concubines?  The  children  of  such 
unions,  born  into  slavery,  cannot  possibly  have  been 
placed  by  this  precept  under  equal  obligation  to  both 
parents,  since  the  relation  between  father  and  mother, 
and  father  and  children,  was  that  of  a  master  to  his 
slaves.  The  fact  is  that  the  power  of  the  Israelite  father 
over  his  family  was  so  unrestrained  that  a  command- 
ment in  his  interest  addressed  to  children  still  under 
his  authority  would  have  been  a  bonus  on  tyranny  — 
a  killing  of  the  slain.  On  the  whole  they  needed  pro- 
tection against  arbitrary  exercise  of  paternal  power 
much  more  than  counsels  of  respect!  Custom,  ap- 
proved by  divine  sanction^gave  him  the  right  to  put 
to  death  a  son  who  was  a  drunkard  or  a  spendthrift.1 

1  Dt.  21 :  18-21.  The  transfer  of  authority  to  a  court  is  in  appearance 


H4  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

The  right  to  sell  his  daughters  into  concubinage  and 
slavery  was  expressly  recognized  by  the  Mosaic  Law.1 
A  daughter's  failure  to  acquiesce  in  her  father's  desire 
to  profit  by  what  even  in  those  days  involved  for  her 
a  measure  of  degradation,  would  clearly  have  been  a 
breach  of  the  fifth  commandment.  In  short  the  suppo- 
sition that  the  fifth  commandment  was  addressed  to 
children  still  under  parental  control  presents  insuper- 
able difficulties. 

Let  us  suppose,  however,  that  the  fifth  command- 
ment, like  the  rest,  is  addressed  to  adult  male  Israelites 
only.  Then  it  acquires  quite  a  different  significance, 
for  the  father  and  mother  in  question  in  that  case  were 
the  aged  parents  of  sons  who  had  founded  their  own 
households  and  were  beyond  parental  control.  A 
woman  passed  from  the  control  of  father,  brother,  or 
uncle,  to  that  of  her  husband-master.  She  had  no  ini- 
tiative or  independent  social  responsibility,  and  was 
held  incompetent  to  exercise  religious  rites  and  func- 
tions. Therefore  the  ancient  legislator  addressed  no 
commands  to  her.  Even  the  wisdom  writers  invari- 
ably addressed  their  precepts  to  sons,  never  to  daugh- 
ters.2 

Since  both  the  family  and  the  family-cultus  were 
perpetuated  through  sons  it  was  a  sacred  duty  to 
do  everything  possible  to  insure  the  male  succession. 
As  in  Greece,  Rome,  and  India,  so  also  in  Israel  pa- 
only,  since  parental  complaint  is  all  that  is  necessary  to  invoke  the 
death  penalty. 

1  Ex.  21:7-11.  2  Prov.  4:1;  5:7;  23:13/.;  29:17. 


ORIGIN  OF  THE   DECALOGUE      115 

rental  blessings  and  curses  were  regarded  as  the  most 
important  factors  that  determined  the  good  or  ill 
fortunes  of  descendants.  A  father's  curse,  once  pro- 
nounced, might  exercise  its  blighting  effect  almost  auto- 
matically without  the  aid  of  Jahveh,  and  the  paternal 
blessing  was  thought  to  operate  in  much  the  same  way. 
Isaac,  having  through  deception  been  led  to  pronounce 
a  blessing  on  Jacob,  can  utter  only  a  curse  on  Esau,  and 
both  work  out  their  effects  independently  of  Jahveh. 
Noah  and  Jacob  in  similar  manner  controlled  the 
destinies  of  their  sons  by  the  mystic  power  of  curses 
and  blessings  which  they  bequeathed  to  them.  Here 
lay  the  primary  source  of  the  sanctity  that  attached 
to  the  persons  of  aged  parents,  and  which  invested 
with  sinister  as  well  as  auspicious  significance  the 
words,  "that  thy  days  may  be  long  in  the  land  which 
Jahveh  thy  God  giveth  thee." 

Plato  furnishes  in  his  Laws  striking  evidence  of  the 
existence  of  analogous  beliefs  among  the  Greeks. 
Neither  God  nor  man,  he  averred,  could  countenance 
neglect  of  parents.  "The  curses  of  parents  are,  as 
they  ought  to  be,  mighty  against  their  children  as  no 
others  are.  .  .  .  May  we  not  think  .  .  .  that  we  can 
possess  no  image  [of  a  deity]  which  is  more  honored 
by  the  gods,  than  that  of  a  father  or  grandfather,  or 
of  a  mother  stricken  in  years?  Whom  when  a  man 
honors,  the  heart  of  the  god  rejoices  and  he  is  ready 
to  answer  their  prayers."  ! 

1  xi,  930-32. 


n6  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT, 

6.  Thou  shalt  not  kill. 

The  sixth  commandment  is  a  simple  prohibition  ex- 
pressed in  Hebrew  by  one  word  with  a  negative.  It  is 
not  the  usual  word  for  "to  kill,"  but  one  that  signifies 
murdering.  Since  blood-revenge  ranks  among  the 
earliest  and  foremost  of  a  clansman's  social  obliga- 
tions, murder  of  a  clansman,  or  of  a  fellow  country- 
man, was  probably  one  of  the  first  acts  that  was 
counted  a  wrong  against  the  social  group.  In  its  orig- 
inal intention  this  commandment,  of  course,  applied 
only  to  those  who  were  members  of  the  same  political 
group,  whether  small  or  large. 

The  regulations  which  govern  homicide  in  ancient 
communities  always  have  reference  to  the  fighting 
capacity  of  the  group.  The  killing  of  a  clansman 
meant  the  weakening  of  the  clan  to  that  extent,  and 
this  was  the  concern  of  all  its  members.  Therefore 
clans  made  reprisals  on  the  principle  of  collective 
responsibility  in  requiring  the  killing  of  some  member 
of  the  murderer's  clan,  not  necessarily  the  actual 
murderer. 

Within  a  large  group,  as  a  tribe  or  a  nation,  the  col- 
lective method  of  settling  one's  grievances  early  gave 
way  to  that  in  which  the  nearest  kinsman  of  the  slain 
constituted  himself  the  avenger  of  blood  and  settled 
the  family's  account  with  that  of  the  murderer  by 
retaliation.  This  was  the  practice  in  Israel  during  the 
greater  part  of  the  Old  Testament  period. 

The   ancient   institution   of   blood-revenge,    there- 


ORIGIN  OF  THE   DECALOGUE      117 

fore,  marked  out  a  large  domain  in  which  this  com- 
mandment remained  inoperative.  Even  a  man  who 
caused  the  death  of  another  accidentally  was  legally 
at  the  mercy  of  the  avenger  unless  he  could  reach  some 
specified  asylum  without  being  overtaken.  The  very 
appointment  of  cities  of  refuge  in  Israel,  to  which  one 
guilty  of  involuntary  manslaughter  might  flee,  con- 
ceded to  the  slain  man's  kin  the  right  to  murder  the 
innocent  refugee  if  they  could.  This  grave  evil  could 
be  remedied  only  by  the  abrogation  of  the  right  of 
private  revenge.  But  the  practice  was  so  fortified  by 
religious  sanction  and  tribal  custom  that  the  asylum 
system  was  first  put  forward,  also  in  the  name  of  reli- 
gion, as  a  palliative. 

As  a  matter  of  course  the  ancient  Israelite  made  no 
application  of  this  commandment  to  the  barbarities 
of  warfare.  Wars  continued  to  be  declared  "holy"  in 
the  name  of  Jahveh.  The  ban  *  of  destruction,  in- 
volving at  times  the  massacre  of  all  the  males  of  a  con- 
quered city,  at  other  times  of  the  entire  population  of 
men,  women,  children,  and  animals,  continued  to  be 
carried  out  in  the  name  of  the  very  religion  that  owned 
the  ten  commandments. 

Finally,  there  remain  as  virtual  exceptions  of  the 
sixth  commandment  those  numerous  cases  in  which  the 
death  penalty  was  inflicted  for  comparatively  trivial 
or  superstitious  reasons.  The  barbarous  system  of  col- 
lective responsibility  countenanced  the  killing  of  all 

1  Josh.  6:17-24;  Dt.  13:15/-;  ISam.  15:33- 


n8  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT 

the  members  of  a  family  with  the  guilty  one,  or  in  his 
stead.  David  handed  over  to  the  Gibeonites  seven 
descendants  of  Saul  to  be  put  to  death  for  misdeeds 
committed  by  their  grandfather.  And  the  Gibeonites 
"hanged  them  in  the  mountain  before  Jahveh."  x 

Since  the  law  of  blood-revenge  applied  only  in  the 
case  of  freemen  the  killing  of  a  slave  was  not  a  serious 
matter.  A  master  who  beat  his  slave  so  that  he  died 
after  a  day  or  two  was  not  to  be  punished,  according  to 
the  Mosiac  Law,  for  the  reason  that  "he  loses  his  own 
property."  In  primitive  as  in  more  modern  times  the 
various  forms  of  judicial  murder  have  yielded  but 
slowly  to  the  demands  of  a  higher  moral  law  and  a 
growing  appreciation  of  the  value  of  human  life. 

The  absolute  value,  therefore,  which  this  command- 
ment appears  to  place  upon  human  life  is  found  to  be 
illusory  when  examined  historically.  All  formulas  of 
this  kind  mean  much  or  little,  according  to  the  cul- 
ture and  ethical  temper  of  the  age  that  uses  them.  The 
ancient  Hebrews  understood  it  relatively  only,  and  in 
conformity  with  the  exceptions  made  by  their  customs. 
Jesus  put  into  it  the  meaning  of  a  new  age. 

7.  Thou  shall  not  commit  adultery. 

This  commandment  was  intended  to  protect  the 
exclusive  right  of  a  man  to  his  wife.  Both  the  second 
person  masculine  of  the  verb,  and  the  fact  that  usage 
generally  applied  it  to  the  acts  of  men,  shows  that  the 

,l  II  Sam.  21:9. 


ORIGIN   OF  THE   DECALOGUE      119 

adult  male  Israelite  is  the  person  addressed.  A  wife 
was  acquired  by  purchase,  which  may  account  for  the 
fact  that  one  feels  uncertain  in  some  instances  whether 
adultery  is  treated  as  a  violation  of  property  rights, 
or  as  a  breach  of  sexual  purity.  A  man's  property  in- 
terest became  effective  the  moment  he  had  paid  the 
mohar,  or  purchase  price.  Hence  a  man  who  sinned 
with  "a  virgin  betrothed,"  one  for  whom  the  purchase 
money  had  already  been  paid,  was  held  guilty  of  hav- 
ing "humbled  his  neighbour's  wife,"  and  the  case  like 
any  other  was  punishable  with  death.1 

The  treatment  of  misconduct  with  a  concubine  is 
clearer  in  its  bearing.  In  such  a  case  the  guilty  man 
was  required  only  to  pay  a  fine  to  her  master.  A  con- 
cubine was  almost  invariably  a  female  slave,  and  the 
fine  was  exacted  to  atone  for  the  infringement  of  her 
husband-master's  property  rights.  The  ultimate  rea- 
son for  this  lenient  treatment  of  both  offenders  must 
lie  in  the  fact  that  a  natural  son  by  a  concubine  stood 
little  chance,  ordinarily,  of  becoming  a  link  in  the  regu- 
lar male  succession  of  the  family.  As  we  shall  see,  it 
probably  was  the  vital  religious  importance  attached 
to  the  legitimacy  of  the  male  heirs  in  a  family  that 
led  to  the  rigorous  treatment  of  adultery.  Usually  the 
severity  of  penalties  imposed  by  society  furnishes  a 
measure  of  the  injury  it  is  supposed  to  have  suffered. 

The  readiness  with  which  Abraham  and  Isaac  in 
early  traditions2  expose  their  wives  to  adultery  in 

1  Dt.  22:  23,  24.  2  Gen.  chaps.  12;  20;  26. 


120  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

order  to  protect  their  own  persons  deserves  considera- 
tion in  this  connection  if  these  traditions  reflect  the 
moral  feeling  of  those  who  wrote  them  down  during 
the  ninth  or  eighth  century  B.C.  Saul  took  away 
David's  wife,  Michal,  and  gave  her  to  Paltiel,  and  a 
pathetic  story  tells  how,  after  a  time,  she  was  wrested 
again  from  the  latter  by  David's  command.1  In  neither 
case  is  there  an  allusion  to  a  breach  of  the  seventh 
commandment.  The  matter  is  treated  as  a  violation  of 
property  rights.  Similarly  Nathan,2  in  the  case  of 
Uriah  the  Hittite,  charges  David  with  high-handed 
stealing  and  murder.  The  rich  man  appropriates  the 
lamb  which  the  poor  man  has  "bought"  and  nurtured. 
Adultery  is  not  mentioned  by  name,  although  it  doubt- 
less was  present  to  the  mind  of  the  narrator.  The  prop- 
erty-aspect of  the  deed  is  uppermost  even  in  the  mind 
of  the  redactor  who  makes  Jahveh  say  to  David,  "I 
will  take  thy  wives  before  thine  eyes  and  give  them  to 
thy  neighbour,"  making  Jahveh  the  agent  in  punishing 
one  case  of  adultery  with  another.  But  did  not  the 
wives  deserve  moral  consideration?  What  happens  to 
them  is  considered  only  in  the  light  of  its  effect  upon 
David,  their  husband-owner.  This  indicates  that  the 
property  aspect  of  adultery  still  outweighs  that  of 
moral  purity.  Otherwise  Jahveh  is  deliberately  pro- 
posing the  moral  degradation  of  David's  wives  merely 
to  lacerate  their  husband's  feelings. 

How  relative  and  one-sided  the  seventh  command- 
1  II  Sara.  3:13-15.  *  II  Sam.  12. 


ORIGIN   OF  THE   DECALOGUE      121 

ment  is  appears  in  the  fact  that  Israelite  wives  were 
never  accorded  ground  for  complaint  on  account  of  a 
husband's  unfaithfulness.  The  very  conception  of  a 
husband's  obligation  of  fidelity  to  his  wives  was  lack- 
ing. The  laws  were  made  by  men  for  men.  Therefore 
only  husbands  were  liable  to  injury,  on  the  one  hand 
by  their  wives,  who  could  break  only  their  own  bonds 
of  wedlock,  and  on  the  other  by  men  who  could  break 
only  those  of  others.  So  far  as  wives  were  concerned, 
a  husband's  affairs  with  other  women  were  not  re- 
garded as  an  infringement  of  their  rights.  The  Israelite 
freeman  was  answerable  for  his  actions  as  a  husband 
only  to  other  freemen  whose  marital  rights  he  might 
invade. 

The  existence  of  these  entirely  different  standards 
of  sexual  morality,  one  for  the  husband  and  the  other 
for  the  wife,  is  an  indisputable  fact  of  Old  Testament 
social  ethics.  It  is  an  extremely  tempting  inference 
that  this  divergence  in  the  community's  comparative 
estimate  of  male  and  female  sexual  responsibility  was 
occasioned  by  beliefs  connected  with  ancestor  worship. 
The  general  prevalence  of  polygamy  and  the  condition 
of  serfdom  to  which  women  were  reduced  would  have 
tended  to  fix  and  perpetuate  the  double  standard  after 
it  had  arisen.  It  would  be  interesting  to  learn  to  what 
extent  the  Old  Testament  has  been  responsible  for  the 
nurture  of  a  dual  standard  of  social  purity  in  Christian 
countries. 

Undoubted  survivals  of  ancestor  worship  among  the 


122  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

ancient  Hebrews  suggest  that  the  commandment 
against  adultery  was  prompted  by  a  motive  deeper 
than  the  desire  to  protect  property  rights,  and  yet  one 
that  was  distinct  from  the  modern  requirement  of  so- 
cial purity.  In  India,  Greece,  and  Rome  an  offering 
could  be  made  to  a  dead  person  only  by  one  who  was 
actually  or  constructively  descended  from  him.  A  nat- 
ural son  meant  the  extinction  of  the  family  and  its 
religion,  and  the  perpetration  of  a  grave  act  of  im- 
piety against  the  ancestral  dead. 

Beliefs  so  widespread  among  ancient  societies  un- 
doubtedly had  their  counterpart  in  Israel.  The  Deu- 
teronomist  still  exacts  a  liturgical  oath  from  every 
male  Israelite  when  he  brings  his  tithe  that  he  has  not 
''given  thereof  [as  an  offering]  to  a  dead  person."  * 
Given  the  belief  that  the  happiness  of  the  dead  depends 
not  upon  the  life  led  in  this  state  of  existence,  but  upon 
offerings  brought  by  legitimate  descendants,  a  powerful 
motive  is  supplied  for  the  observance  of  conjugal  fidel- 
ity. It  will  be  seen  at  once  that  under  this  construction 
of  family  religion  the  obligations  rested  entirely  upon 
the  wife,  for  her  conduct  only  could  affect  the  status 
of  the  family  of  which  she  formed  a  part.  She  was  the 
real  authenticator  of  birth  and  parentage.  Her  hus- 
band's acts  could  endanger  only  the  status  of  other 
families.  Here  may  lie  the  source  of  the  belief  that  a 
wife's  unfaithfulness  is  a  vastly  more  serious  matter 

p  *  Dt.  26: 14;  cf.  Gen.  35:8, 14;  these  two  verses  doubtless  were  sepa- 
rated by  the  P  redactor. 


ORIGIN  OF  THE  DECALOGUE      123 

than  that  of  her  husband.  Therefore  when  the  religion 
of  Jahveh  invested  with  a  divine  sanction  this  ancient 
obligation  never  to  break  that  series  of  legitimate  heirs 
which  was  every  family's  sole  and  sacred  bond  between 
the  living  and  the  dead,  it  did  a  notable  thing.  It 
carried  the  obligation  beyond  the  woman  to  the  man, 
for  it  said  to  him,  "Thou  shalt  not  commit  adultery." 

8.  Thou  shalt  not  steal. 

This  precept  is  so  elementary  that  it  undoubtedly 
formed  part  of  the  unwritten  moral  code  of  Israel  long 
before  the  time  of  Moses.  In  early  nomadic  societies, 
however,  there  was  not  much  that  could  be  stolen  ex- 
cept animals,  weapons,  food,  and  garments.  As  the  arts 
of  life  advanced,  the  number  and  variety  of  property 
rights  increased,  and  theft  became  a  more  and  more 
serious  offence. 

Among  the  Israelites  the  obligation  to  respect  pri- 
vate property,  we  must  suppose,  experienced  the  same 
gradual  enlargement  as  other  promptings  of  the  moral 
instinct.  This  means  that  originally  it  had  binding 
force  only  between  members  of  the  same  tribal  group. 
This  was  particularly  true  of  nomads  who  almost  de- 
pended for  their  living  upon  theft  and  robbery.  Even 
David  played  the  part  of  a  Bedawin  sheik  when  he 
levied  blackmail  because  his  men  had  not  made  booty 
of  Nabal's  flocks. 

The  constantly  reiterated  warnings  of  the  prophets 
and  the  Deuteronomists  against  unjust  treatment  of 


124  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

the  resident  foreigner  or  client  had  their  reason  in  the 
inherited  practice  of  making  moral  obligations  coex- 
tensive with  blood-kinship  only.  Plain  foreigners  were 
legitimate  prey.  It  is  the  Elohist *  who  tells  how  Jahveh 
himself,  through  Moses,  requests  the  Israelites  to  bor- 
row from  the  Egyptians  with  the  concealed  intention  of 
keeping  what  they  get.  In  spite  of  all  the  expedients 
of  traditional  interpreters  this  is  and  remains  to  a 
modern  mind  plain  stealing.  But  in  the  mind  of  the 
ancient  Hebrew  the  act  aroused  no  scruples,  because 
all  foreigners  were  real  or  potential  enemies,  and  his 
conduct  toward  them  was  not  governed  by  moral  con- 
siderations. His  religious  ethics  still  were  tribal  in  their 
scope. 

9.  Thou  shalt  not  bear  false  witness  against  thy  neighbour. 
The  enormous  importance  attached  to  public  opin- 
ion in  all  forms  of  early  society  is  a  thing  well  known  to 
anthropologists.  In  more  advanced  societies  customary 
law  began  to  take  care  of  a  man's  reputation.  As  the 
law  concerned  itself  more  and  more  exclusively  with 
penal  offences,  slander  became  a  matter  of  slighter  im- 
portance. But  a  member  of  a  ruder  and  more  primitive 
society,  as  Mr.  Marett  remarks,  "cannot  stand  up  for 
a  moment  against  an  adverse  public  opinion;  to  rob 
him  of  his  good  name  is  to  rob  him  of  all  that  makes  life 
worth  living."  We  must  suppose,  therefore,  that  this 
commandment  had  as  a  forerunner  one  directed  against 

1  Ex.  11:1-3. 


ORIGIN  OF  THE   DECALOGUE      125 

slander.  Such  a  one  still  survives  as  a  part  of  the  Cove- 
nant Code,  and  it  is  found  conjoined  with  another  which 
is  substantially  the  ninth  commandment  of  the  deca- 
logue: "Thou  shalt  not  utter  a  false  report;  thou  shalt 
not  assist  him  who  is  in  the  wrong  by  becoming  an  un- 
righteous witness."  x 

The  present  form  of  the  commandment  not  to  bear 
false  witness  assumes  the  existence  of  some  kind  of 
judicial  machinery.  Under  the  tribal  organization  it 
must  have  been  extremely  primitive,  for  a  sheik  can- 
not enforce  his  decision  even  if  he  makes  one.  His  au- 
thority had  moral  force  only.  Gressmann  2  has  stated 
convincingly  some  critical  objections  to  the  view  that 
Moses  instituted  at  Mount  Sinai  the  somewhat  elab- 
orate judicial  system  attributed  to  him  in  Exodus.3 
But  when  he  assumes  that  events  at  Kadesh  instead  of 
at  Sinai  form  the  historical  basis  of  the  tradition,  one 
is  tempted  to  desert  him  for  a  later  date  and  a  more 
complex  society. 

Josephus  is  authority  for  the  statement  that  women 
and  slaves  could  not  qualify  as  witnesses.4  Whether 
this  held  true  during  the  entire  Old  Testament  period 
cannot  be  decided  upon  existing  evidence.  But  wher- 
ever witnesses  are  mentioned  they  are  men,  and  the 
present  commandment,  also,  is  addressed  to  men  on 
behalf  of  men.  Since  in  the  family  all  were  under  the 
power  of  the  master,  Hebrew  judicial  procedure  prob- 

1  Ex.  23: 1.  2  Mose  und  seine  Zeit,  p.  175  ff. 

*  Ex.  18  (E).  *  Ant.  iv,  219. 


126  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

ably  was  closely  analogous  to  that  of  Rome  both  in 
origin  and  in  practice.  Plutarch  declares  that  at  Rome 
women  could  not  appear  in  court  as  witnesses.1  The 
jurisconsult  Gaius  furnished  the  following  reason  and 
explanation:  "  It  should  be  known  that  nothing  can  be 
granted  in  the  way  of  justice  to  persons  under  power 
—  that  is  to  say,  to  wives,  sons,  and  slaves.  For  it  is 
reasonably  concluded  that,  since  these  persons  can  own 
no  property,  neither  can  they  reclaim  anything  in 
point  of  justice."  2  In  short,  the  public  tribunal  ex- 
isted only  for  the  master  of  the  family,  and  he  was  re- 
sponsible for  the  members  of  his  household.  So  far  as 
the  evidence  goes,  this  states  the  facts  also  for  Israelite 
practice.  ''If  an  unrighteous  witness  rise  up  against 
any  man  to  testify  against  him  of  wrong-doing," 
writes  the  Deuteronomist,  "then  both  men  between 
whom  the  controversy  is  shall  stand  before  Jahveh,  and 
before  the  priests  and  the  judges  that  shall  be  in  those 
days." 3 

How  liable  this  crude  system  of  administering  jus- 
tice was  to  abuse  through  employment  of  false  wit- 
nesses is  shown  by  the  case  of  Naboth  who  was  put 
to  death  upon  the  testimony  of  two  "base  fellows."  4 
The  moral  censure  of  the  prophets  and  wise  men,  and 
the  severe  punishment  meted  out  to  a  false  witness, 
indicates  the  existence  of  a  strong  public  sentiment 
against  this  evil.   The  actual  evidence  of  this  feeling, 

1  Plutarch,  Publicola,  8.  •  Gaius,  n,  96  ;  iv,  77,  78. 

•  Dt.  19:16,  17.  «  I  Kings  21. 


ORIGIN   OF  THE   DECALOGUE      127 

however,  is  confined  almost  entirely  to  literature  that 
originated  after  the  middle  of  the  eighth  century  B.C. 

10.  Thou  shall  not  covet  thy  neighbour1  s  house. 

If  this  was  the  original  form  of  the  commandment, 
the  word  "house,"  as  often  in  Hebrew,  meant  the 
family  and  everything  that  belonged  to  the  family. 
The  Deuteronomic  variant  puts  the  wife  first  as  the 
foremost  of  a  husband's  possessions.  It  scarcely  is 
necessary  to  remind  the  reader  that  the  "neighbour" 
meant  a  fellow  Israelite. 

There  has  been  much  discussion  about  the  tenth 
commandment  because  it  apparently  passes  from  evil 
acts  to  evil  desires.  Many  look  upon  this  fact  as  in  it- 
self evidence  of  a  comparatively  late  stage  of  religious 
development.  Others,  like  Eerdmans,  maintain  that 
"Old  Testament  righteousness  is  always  external  and 
never  becomes  a  matter  of  inward  disposition."  l  He 
holds  that  the  word  translated  to  "covet"  should  be 
rendered  to  "appropriate  that  which  has  no  individual 
owner."  In  support  of  his  view  he  appeals  to  the  pas- 
sage "neither  shall  any  man  covet  thy  land,  when 
thou  goest  up  to  appear  before  Jahveh  thy  God  three 
times  the  year."  2 

Old  Testament  morality  is  undoubtedly  forensic 
and  external.  While  the  religion  of  the  prophets  ulti- 
mately developed  a  certain  degree  of  inwardness,  few 

1  Theol.  Tijdschrift  (1903),  Heft  1,  p.  25. 

2  Ex.  34:24;  cf.  AS,  in,  p.  142. 


128  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

evidences  of  this  deepening  process  can  be  found  during 
the  pre-exilic  period.  It  is  not  likely,  therefore,  that 
such  a  commandment  as  this  would  have  been  included 
in  the  decalogue  unless  the  law-giver  had  thought  of 
the  deed  in  connection  with  the  desire.  So  much  may 
be  regarded  as  certain  even  though  one  finds  the  evi- 
dence for  Eerdmans'  meaning  of  the  word  inconclu- 
sive. 

A  little  reflection  will  show  that  the  late  arrival  in 
Hebrew  religion  of  the  subjective  element  of  thought 
and  intention  is  found  in  keeping  with  what  one  might 
expect.  The  period  of  group  morality  and  of  a  com- 
munal conception  of  religion  is  not  favorable  to  the 
development  of  a  subjective  conception  of  religious 
duty.  The  subjectivizing  process  of  religion  and 
morality  is  found  associated  historically  with  indi- 
vidualism, not  with  communalism.  Individualism  in 
Hebrew  religion,  however,  does  not  begin  to  appear 
until  about  the  time  of  Jeremiah.  The  general  trend 
of  these  considerations,  therefore,  favors  either  a  com- 
paratively late  origin  for  the  tenth  commandment,  or 
a  concrete  and  external  interpretation  of  its  meaning. 

The  general  results  of  this  discussion  may  be  sum- 
marized as  follows:  — 

1.  More  than  one  decalogue  arose  in  the  course  of 
Hebrew  history. 

2.  Of  two  which  survive,  the  component  precepts 
were  addressed  only  to  men  as  heads  of  families; 


ORIGIN  OF  THE   DECALOGUE      129 

women  and  children  being  bound  to  obedience  through 
the  men,  who  alone  were  capable  of  discharging  reli- 
gious functions. 

3.  The  standard  decalogue  contains  some  com- 
mandments that  must  have  originated  long  before  the 
time  of  Moses;  others,  again,  can  scarcely  have  origi- 
nated until  long  after  his  time. 

4.  We  are,  therefore,  compelled  to  assume  that  the 
decalogue  is  itself  the  product  of  a  long  development, 
and  that  it  was  compiled  after  the  great  prophets  had 
finished  their  work. 

To  the  student  of  ethical  development,  the  point  of 
chief  interest  lies  not  in  the  origination  of  the  indivi- 
dual precepts,  but  in  the  selection  of  these  command- 
ments as  a  summary  statement  of  an  Israelite's  re- 
ligious duties.  Being  of  a  very  general  character,  their 
interpretation  and  observance  necessarily  changed  so 
as  to  keep  pace  with  the  morality,  enlightenment,  and 
culture  of  an  advancing  society. 

It  must  already  have  occurred  to  readers  of  these 
pages  that  the  prevailing  interpretation  and  appraisal 
of  the  decalogue  as  a  rule  of  conduct  is  strangely  at 
variance  with  the  ascertainable  facts  of  its  origin  and 
its  immature  social  ethics.  These  facts  are  fatal  to  any 
theory  of  miraculous  oracular  deliverances  on  Mount 
Sinai,  and  happily  so.  Moral  precepts  must  be  judged 
by  their  character,  not  by  their  sources.  Conscience 
may  be  educated,  but  it  cannot  be  instructed.  Even 
God  cannot  legislate  for  man  morally  except  through 


i3o  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

his  own  sense  of  right.  Even  if  an  action  were  not  other- 
wise wrong,  it  would  be  less  than  right  unless  the  doer, 
in  his  own  heart,  judges  it  to  be  right.  God  is  not 
morally  served  if  he  is  obeyed  in  any  other  way. 

For  these  reasons  the  traditional  view  of  the  deca- 
logue, and  of  its  origin,  is  not  only  false  on  the  facts, 
but  immoral  in  its  theory.  Men  have  only  recently 
learned  that  moral  education  cannot  consist  in  telling 
the  pupil  on  authority  what  he  ought  to  do,  but  in 
making  him  see  for  himself  the  thing  that  is  right. 
A  growing  moral  personality  must  be  self-directing. 
Though  no  judgment  of  conscience  is  infallible,  a 
moral  faith  in  God  as  the  moral  law-giver  is  identical 
with  the  belief  that,  in  so  far  as  we  see  right,  we  find 
his  will. 

Incontestable  facts  show  that  the  decalogue,  also, 
has  been  promulgated,  divinely  indeed,  from  the  Si- 
nais  of  countless  human  hearts.  Here,  as  in  the 
storm  and  stress  of  other  struggles  for  a  higher  life,  the 
lightning  flashed  and  the  thunder  broke  from  clouds 
of  human  experience.  Nor  will  one  who  has  watched, 
through  long  hours  of  historical  study,  the  toilsome 
progress  of  mankind  toward  higher  ideals  be  disturbed 
by  the  constant  identification  of  God's  will  with  the 
partial  attainments  of  the  toilers.  They  were  but  ex- 
pressing their  intense  faith  in  the  value  of  their  gains. 
It  was  Jesus  of  Nazareth  who  denoted  the  inhibitions 
of  this  early  human  experience  as  incomplete  when  he 
applied  the  demands  of  a  higher  conscience  to  what 


ORIGIN  OF  THE   DECALOGUE      131 

"was  said  to  them  of  old  time,"  1  and  made  the  es- 
sence of  "the  law  and  the  prophets"  consist  in  the 
practice  of  the  golden  rule. 

Note.  —  Meek's  careful  treatment  of  "The  Sabbath  in 
the  Old  Testament"  (JBL,  vol.  xxxiii,  pt.  m)  reached  me 
after  the  completion  of  my  manuscript.  It  is  a  great  pleas- 
ure to  find  that  our  conclusions  are  in  substantial  agreement. 

1  Mt.  5:21  ff. ;  cf.  7: 12,  and  22:37-40. 


\ 


CHAPTER  V 

PIONEERS  OF   A   NEW   ERA 
Amos  of  Tekoa  and  Hosea  ben-Beeri 

I 

An  almost  countless  series  of  essays  and  books  testi- 
fies to  the  fascination  which  the  extant  writings  1  of 
the  herdsman  prophet  of  Tekoa  have  exercised  over 
the  minds  of  Bible  students.  This  is  not  due  merely 
to  the  circumstance,  whether  original  or  adventitious, 
that  Amos'  sermons  inaugurate  the  era  of  written 
prophecy.  To  one  who  approaches  his  utterances 
through  the  early  traditions  of  Israel,  he  exhibits  a 
moral  elevation  that  challenges  attention  as  does  the 
Matterhom  above  the  valley  of  Zermatt.  His  person 
and  work  constitute  a  striking  phenomenon  in  the  his- 
tory of  religious  experience. 

Budde  doubtless  is  right  in  his  explanation  of  the 
opening  verse  of  the  book,  with  its  reference  to  the 
"two  years  before  the  earthquake,"2  as  a  learned  ad- 
dition of  later  date.  It  would  be  useless  in  any  case  for 
the  determination  of  the  commencement  of  Amos' 

1  The  following  passages,  generally  recognized  as  editorial  additions  of 
a  later  date,  do  not  enter  into  this  study:  Am.  1:2  ;  1:9-12:4:13  ;  5: 
8-9  ;  6:2  ;  reference  to  hunger  for  "words  of  Jahveh"  probably  inter- 
polated in  8: 11-13,  if  the  whole  passage  is  not  a  later  addition;  9:5-6. 
and  9:8-15.  It  seems  very  likely  that  1 : 6-8,  and  3:7  also  are  later 
additions. 

2  Cf.  Budde,  ZAW,  1910,  pp.  37~4i- 


PIONEERS  OF  A  NEW  ERA        133 

prophetic  career.  For  practical  purposes  one  may 
assume  that  his  activity  began  about  750  B.C.  Prob- 
ably the  impression  produced  by  the  great  solar  eclipse 
of  763  B.C.  lies  behind  the  threat  that  "the  sun  shall 
go  down  at  noon."  !  Earthquakes  were  of  frequent 
occurrence  in  Palestine,  and  the  fact  that  Amos  refers 
in  the  same  breath  to  earthquake  and  solar  eclipse 
as  impending  calamities  is  indirect  testimony  to  the 
great  terror  which  both  inspired.  They  always  were 
portentous  signs  to  the  peoples  of  antiquity,  who  ob- 
viously had  no  conception  of  general  laws.2  Amos  and 
his  Israelite  contemporaries  regarded  Jahveh  as  the 
direct  cause  of  all  such  portents  and  calamities,  and, 
therefore,  assumed  that  he  must  have  some  definite 
reason  for  sending  them.3  This  fact  affords  him  the 
opportunity  to  reach  their  conscience  by  playing  upon 
their  fear.  In  doing  so  he  is  speaking  out  of  the  popu- 
larly accepted  beliefs  of  his  day. 

It  would  be  obscurantism  to  hide  from  ourselves  the 
fact  that  such  beliefs  have  become  untenable.  They  are 
the  product  of  a  primitive  science  of  the  world,  and  a 
theory  of  the  moral  order  which  is  to  us  immoral. 
Jesus  on  one  occasion  called  attention  to  the  fact  that 
God  lets  the  sun  shine  and  the  rain  fall  on  the  good 

1  Am.  8:7-10. 

2  In  one  of  the  old  chronicles  of  Hildesheim,  as  late  as  the  year  990 
A.D.  occurs  the  following  entry:  "  In  the  same  year  on  the  21st  of  October 
occurred  a  great  solar  eclipse,  and  it  was  followed  by  great  mortality 
among  men  and  beasts."   Transl.  from  Monumenta  Germaniae. 

8  The  idea  that  Jahveh  causes  earthquakes  and  eclipses  must  at  some 
period  have  displaced  the  belief  that  earth  and  air  demons  were  respons- 
ible for  these  phenomena. 


134  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

and  the  bad  alike.  A  larger  science  has  enabled  the 
modern  man  to  see  that  God  governs  the  world  by 
orderly  processes  of  law,  not  by  sporadic  interferences, 
and  a  deeper  theodicy  has  shown  a  serious  moral  de- 
fect in  the  view  that  God  employs  great  natural  catas- 
trophies  to  punish  men,  thus  engulfing  both  the  good 
and  the  bad  in  one  common  ruin.  Besides,  the  con- 
ception of  a  world  that  is  governed  in  the  interest  of  a 
favored  minority,  a  "chosen  people,"  is  in  any  case 
incompatible  with  the  Christian  idea  of  God. 

But  Amos  shared  these  beliefs  with  his  contempo- 
raries and  proclaimed  them  with  a  "Thus  saith  the 
Lord."  They  were  almost  inevitable  under  the  con- 
ception of  the  moral  order  which  then  prevailed.  This 
fact  will  become  more  apparent  later  on.  Amos  as  yet 
knew  nothing  of  a  future  life  to  which  the  problem 
of  divine  rewards  and  punishments  could  be  referred. 
Yet  belief  in  Jahveh's  guardianship  of  right  demanded 
requital  of  men  for  their  deeds.  It  will  be  sufficient  at 
this  point  to  suggest  that  one  who  is  restricted,  as 
Amos  was,  to  our  natural  world  for  evidences  of  God's 
moral  government  has  no  recourse  but  to  interpret 
national  calamities  as  divine  punishments,  or  to  de- 
clare the  world  a  moral  chaos. 

Until  the  middle  of  the  eighth  century  B.C.  Hebrew 
prophecy  had  concerned  itself  chiefly  with  the  defence 
of  the  national  life.  Amos  applies  his  prophetic  gifts 
to  a  relentless  criticism  of  the  popular  and  sacerdotal 
religion  of  his  time,  and  thus  leads  the  first  great  moral 


PIONEERS  OF  A  NEW  ERA         135 

advance.  The  greatness  of  the  service  he  rendered 
cannot  be  fully  appreciated  without  a  brief  review  of 
contemporary  ideas  about  the  deity's  relation  to  the 
nation.  It  has  already  been  pointed  out,  in  passing, 
that  the  existing  social  order  was  reflected  in  Hebrew 
popular  theology.  The  people  conceived  the  relation 
between  Jahveh  and  Israel  to  be  a  natural  and  indis- 
soluble one,  like  that  between  the  Moabites  and  their 
god  Chemosh.  He  is  the  king  behind  the  king  and 
regards  his  worshippers  as  the  latter  regards  his  sub- 
jects. A  king  without  subjects  and  a  deity  without 
worshippers  are  equally  unfortunate,  for  the  one  needs 
the  homage  and  gifts  of  his  subjects,  and  the  other  the 
sanctuary  and  sacrifices  provided  by  his  worshippers. 
It  is  assumed,  therefore,  that  the  deity,  no  less  than 
the  king,  will  seek  to  secure  the  perpetuation  of  the 
nation  as  a  measure  of  self-interest. 

From  this  narrow  tribal  conception  of  Jahveh  it  fol- 
lows that  his  obligations  toward  the  nation  are  chiefly 
of  a  protective  nature.  He  must  help  the  Israelites 
against  their  foreign  enemies.  Moral  considerations 
hardly  play  a  part  where  foreigners  are  concerned.  The 
narrator  of  Gen.  12  is  scarcely  conscious  that  Jahveh, 
by  "plaguing  Pharaoh  with  great  plagues,"  justifies 
the  lie  whereby  Abraham  has  enriched  himself  and 
dishonored  his  wife.  The  same  moral  twilight  en- 
velops the  tradition  that  represents  Jahveh  as  bound 
to  carry  out  against  Esau  the  fraudulently  obtained 
blessing  of  Isaac.  This  was  a  perfectly  natural  assump- 


136  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

tion  as  long  as  the  average  Israelite  attributed  to 
Jahveh  his  own  hostility  to  foreigners.  The  assump- 
tions which  underlie  these  and  similar  traditions  may 
be  offered  as  typical  illustrations  of  the  two  main  ob- 
stacles which  stood  in  the  way  of  moral  progress:  the 
national- god-idea,  and  the  identification  of  Jahveh1  s  will 
with  the  particularistic  ethics  of  Israel's  tribal  customs. 

What  does  Amos  have  to  say  to  this  moral  obliquity 
by  which  Jahveh,  on  the  basis  of  a  supposed  necessary 
alliance  between  Israel  and  himself,  is  claimed  as  the 
sanctioner  and  defender  of  Israel's  wickedness?  His 
answer  must  have  been  startling  in  the  extreme;  to 
many  it  must  have  seemed  even  blasphemous  and  un- 
patriotic. ' '  You  only  have  I  known  of  all  the  families  of 
the  earth;  therefore  will  I  visit  upon  you  all  your  ini- 
quities." *  Amos  grants  that  Jahveh  is  the  God  of 
Israel  only,  but  he  makes  a  use  of  the  national-god- 
idea  which  was  bound  to  destroy  its  old  meaning.  Two 
objections  are  entered:  (i)  Jahveh's  relation  to  Israel 
is  not  a  necessary,  but  a  voluntary  one.  He  chose  them 
and  can  dissolve  the  relation  again,  for  they  are  not 
necessary  to  his  existence  or  well-being.  (2)  Far  from 
becoming  their  champion  in  political  troubles  and  so 
conniving  at  their  wickedness,  he,  being  a  moral  per- 
sonality, is  bound  to  chastise  them  even  unto  destruc- 
tion. 

It  is  difficult  for  a  modern  to  realize  how  paradoxical 
this  declaration  must  have  sounded  to  the  hearers  of 

1  Am.  3:2. 


PIONEERS  OF  A  NEW  ERA        137 

Amos,  for  popularly  it  meant  the  destruction  both  of 
the  nation  and  of  its  religion.  Since  the  exercise  of 
religion  in  Israel,  as  in  other  ancient  Semitic  states, 
had  for  its  object  the  prosperity  and  perpetuation  of 
organized  society,  no  one  could  suppose  that  any  god 
would  destroy  his  own  clients.  On  the  contrary,  the 
chief  function  of  the  national  god  is  that  of  leading  his 
worshippers  to  victory  against  foreigners, —  his  enemies 
and  theirs.  Hence  the  Israelites  are  looking  forward  to 
the  great  battle-day  on  which  Jahveh  will  vindicate 
them  against  their  foreign  enemies. 

Amos  has  only  bitter  scorn  for  this  expectation  of 
unmoral  partisanship.  "Woe  unto  you,  that  desire  the 
day  of  Jahveh:  Wherefore  would  ye  have  the  day  of 
Jahveh?  ...  As  if  a  man  did  flee  from  a  lion,  and  a 
bear  met  him:  or  went  into  the  house  and  leaned  his 
hand  on  the  wall,  and  a  serpent  bit  him.  Shall  not  the 
day  of  Jahveh  be  darkness,  and  not  light?  Even  very 
dark  and  no  brightness  in  it!"  l  Jahveh's  favor,  de- 
clares Amos,  is  contingent  upon  the  moral  character 
of  the  recipient.  Claiming  to  be  his  people,  they  must 
conform  to  his  will,  which  is  ethical.  Failing  in  that, 
the  religious  bond  which  should  be  their  strength,  must 
be  their  undoing,  for  Jahveh  does  not  grant  his  aid,  as 
a  certificate  of  good  moral  character,  to  a  people  that 
does  not  deserve  it. 

One  must  bear  in  mind  that  Hebrew  worshippers  at 
this  time  were  not  conscious  of  a  distinction  between 

1  Am.  5:18-20. 


138  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

cultus  and  religion,  for  they  regarded  the  support  and 
proper  administration  of  the  cultus  as  a  complete  dis- 
charge of  their  religious  obligations.  This  was  a  time- 
honored  belief  in  Semitic  as  in  many  other  ancient  re- 
ligions. There  might  be  times  when  the  deity  would 
be  offended  and  refuse  to  accept  the  offered  sacrifices. 
But  that  he  might  refuse  them  altogether,  as  ineffi- 
cacious to  secure  his  favor,  was  an  idea  foreign  to  an- 
cient notions  of  divine  requirements.  The  sacrificial 
feasts  were  a  highly  prized  feature  of  community  life 
and  tended  to  be  orgiastic  in  their  joyousness.  Ac- 
cording to  the  simple  theology  of  those  days  the  deity 
shared  the  pleasures  of  the  occasion  with  his  worship- 
pers, and  so  renewed  the  bond  that  constituted  him 
their  champion  and  patron. 

But  Amos,  in  no  uncertain  tone,  exposes  as  a  de- 
lusion this  popular  confidence  in  the  cultus  as  the  be 
all  and  the  end  all  of  religion.  He  understands  Jahveh 
to  say:  "I  hate,  I  despise  your  [sacrificial]  feasts,1  and 
will  not  smell  [the  savor  of]  your  festal  assemblies. 
Yea,  though  ye  offer  me  your  burnt-offerings  and  meal- 
offerings,  I  will  not  accept  them ;  neither  will  I  regard 
the  peace-offerings  of  your  fat  beasts."  2  Observing  the 
zeal  with  which  the  people  make  pilgrimages  to  Bethel 
and  Gilgal  in  order  to  sacrifice  and  feast  merrily  to- 
gether, the  prophet  declares  it  not  only  valueless,  but 
sinful.3 

1  Haggim,  "pilgrim  feasts,"  which  were  of  a  highly  joyous  character; 
I  Sam.  30: 16,  describes  the  Amalekites  behaving  as  at  a  pilgrim-feast. 

2  Am.  5:21/.  a  Am.  4:4~5« 


PIONEERS   OF  A   NEW   ERA         139 

The  sacrifices,  it  should  be  noted,  are  offered  to 
Jahveh.  The  statements  of  Amos  and  Hosea  leave  no 
doubt  upon  this  point.  The  Deuteronomic  writers  of 
a  later  period  are  unhistorical  in  their  representation 
that  not  Jahveh,  but  idols,  were  worshipped  at  the 
northern  sanctuaries.  In  his  very  tone  Amos  assumes 
that  the  people  already  know  what  Jahveh  demands  in 
place  of  this  ceremonial  service.  Nevertheless  he  form- 
ulates his  conception  of  Jahveh 's  requirements  in  sev- 
eral striking  sentences. 

In  place  of  the  rejected  and  worthless  sacrifices  they 
are  to  "let  justice  roll  down  as  waters  and  righteous- 
ness as  an  everflowing  stream."1  The  direct  parallel- 
ism between  the  following  passages  indicates  that 
"seeking  Jahveh"  and  "seeking  good"  are  substan- 
tially equivalent  expressions:  — 

"Seek  Jahveh,  and  ye  shall  live"; 2 

"Seek  good,  and  not  evil,  that  ye  may  live."  8 
To  "seek  Jahveh"  had  always  meant  to  visit  a  Jahveh 
sanctuary  in  order  to  offer  sacrifices.  The  very  dif- 
ferent meaning  which  Amos  now  gives  to  the  phrase  is 
in  detail  dependent  upon  the  question  of  what  he  un- 
derstood by  "good."  It  must  suffice  in  this  connec- 
tion to  note  its  undoubted  moral  significance.  In 
extant  written  prophecy  these  passages  constitute 
the  first  great  declaration,  in  the  Old  Testament,  of 
the  inseparability  of  morality  and  religion.  So  funda- 
mental is  this  recognition  of  the  ethical  character  of 

•Am.  5:24.         2  Am.  5:6.  3  Am.  5:  14.   Cf.  also  5:6  and  5: 15. 


140  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

true  religion  that  out  of  it  have  grown  the  positive 
gains  of  the  entire  subsequent  development  of  Israel's 
religion. 

Amos'  declaration  that  sacrifice  cannot  indemnify 
for  the  neglect  of  Jahveh's  moral  precepts  implies  a 
clear  perception  of  God's  will  as  an  ethical  will,  and 
that  he  recognized  in  moral  conduct  the  supreme  re- 
quirement of  religion.   To  his  credit,  therefore,  will  it 
ever  be  said,  that  he  was  the  first  great  prophet  in 
Israel  who  defined  religion  in  terms  of  moral  obliga- 
tion. There  was  no  possibility  of  moral  progress  in  the 
old  idea  that  Jahveh  was  simply  the  guardian  of  exist- 
ing social  customs  among  Israelites,  and  that  he  de- 
manded sacrifices  as  fines  for  sins  committed,  or  as  a 
retaining  fee  to  champion  their  cause  against  foreign 
enemies.    Such  a  religion  was  a  comfortable  pillow, 
especially  as  long  as  the  king  assumed  the  duty  of 
maintaining  the  cultus  in  a  state  of  becoming  magnifi- 
cence out  of  the  royal  funds.  Upon  this  religion  of  mad 
and  sensual  indulgence,  typified  by  the  sacrificial  revel- 
lers at  Bethel,  the  herdsman  prophet  of  Tekoa  served 
the  summons  of  a  higher  conscience,  supported  by  an 
essentially  new  conception  of  Jahveh  and  his  demands. 
It  would  be  interesting  and  illuminating  to  learn 
what  Amos  included  under  the  term  "good."  To  read 
a  New  Testament  meaning  into  the  word  would  be  a 
serious  mistake.    He  doubtless  would  have  admitted 
some  social  customs  and  forms  of  conduct  under  this 
heading  which  the  Christian  judgment  of  our  time 


PIONEERS  OF  A  NEW  ERA         141 

would  unhesitatingly  classify  differently.  We  need 
but  instance  polygamy,  slavery,  and  blood-revenge  — 
institutions  which  entirely  escaped  censure  by  the 
prophets,  because  the  moral  feeling  of  the  time  dis- 
cerned nothing  wrong  in  them.  In  such  matters  Amos, 
also,  stood  upon  the  moral  plane  of  his  environment. 
He  may  have  endeavored  to  regulate  the  abuses  of  such 
institutions,  but  did  not  advocate  their  abolition. 

If  we  do  not  know  all  that  Amos  meant  by  "good," 
neither  do  we  know  all  that  he  meant  by  the  "iniqui- 
ties" which  Jahveh  is  to  visit  upon  his  people.  Some 
of  Amos'  denunciations  suggest  that  his  understand- 
ing of  "evil"  included  things  that  cannot  be  con- 
demned on  moral  grounds.  Notice,  for  instance,  his 
vehement  arraignment  of  what  might  be  called  ordi- 
nary luxuries  of  life.  Like  many  another  ardent  re- 
former, he  probably  did  not  always  stop  to  distinguish 
between  abuse  and  legitimate  use  of  certain  things. 
Unfortunately  neither  the  depths  nor  the  shallows  of 
his  moral  judgment  are  accessible  now  to  the  plummet 
of  psychological  analysis.  This  much,  however,  is 
clear,  that  the  fundamental  social  virtues  —  justice, 
honesty,  truthfulness,  and  fair  dealing  —  occupy  the 
foreground  of  his  thought.  There  is,  indeed,  a  series 
of  passages  which  seem  to  restrict  Jahveh's  moral  re- 
quirements to  the  proper  administration  of  justice  on 
the  one  hand,  and  a  condition  of  legal  rectitude  on  the 
other.1   This  identification  of  righteousness  with  legal 

1  Am.  2:7/.;  5:7,  10-12  ;  8:4-6. 


142  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

righteousness,  however,  is  to  be  regarded  as  more  ap- 
parent than  real.  The  limit  lies  in  the  emphasis,  not  in 
the  application  of  his  thought.  Amos  had  before  his 
eyes  the  everlasting  curse  of  the  East,  bribery  of  elders 
and  priests  who  served  as  judges.  This  corruption  of 
the  courts  deprived  the  poor  man  of  his  right  and  filled 
the  houses  of  the  rich  with  violence  and  spoil.1 

Since  overtness  is  a  necessary  condition  of  legal 
guilt  it  is  well  to  remind  one's  self  of  the  fact  that  the 
judgments  of  Amos  and  his  successors  still  move  in  a 
realm  where  motives  as  yet  play  a  scarcely  perceptible 
part.  For  morality  differentiates  itself  from  legality  at 
the  point  where  the  inward  test  of  merit  begins  to  sup- 
plant the  outward.  Amos  is  seeking  to  apply  concrete 
remedies  to  concrete  sins.  Therefore  he  postulates  as 
the  foundation  of  acceptable  religion  that  elemental 
requirement  of  the  moral  law  which  his  hearers  so 
signally  violate  in  their  human  relations.  For  the  same 
reason  Jahveh  seems  to  him  an  impersonation  of  jus- 
tice, and  the  sacrifices  "a  covering  of  the  eyes,"  an 
attempt  to  bribe  the  supreme  judge. 

No  picture  of  Amos'  fancy  is  so  full  of  meaning  as 
that  of  the  mystic  figure  on  the  wall  with  a  plumb-line 
in  his  hand.  It  is  his  symbol  for  an  inexorable,  un- 
deviating  Justice  whose  decision  must  prove  fatal  to 
Israel.  The  fundamental  character  of  social  justice  in 
the  sermons  of  Amos  is  a  matter  of  scientific  interest 
to  the  student  of  moral  origins.   Here  as  elsewhere  the 

1  Am.  3: 10. 


PIONEERS   OF   A   NEW   ERA         143 

facts  of  moral  development  among  the  Hebrews  are  in 
harmony  with  the  wider  experience  of  mankind.1 

We  have  already  had  occasion  to  observe  that  legal 
righteousness  does  not  exhaust  the  ethical  content  of 
what  Amos  calls  "good."  Legal  righteousness  would, 
of  course,  mean  Hebrew  legal  righteousness,  which 
could  not  be  otherwise  than  local  and  temporal  in  its 
scope.  But  Amos  has  in  mind  an  ethical  standard  by 
which  he  judges  the  conduct  of  neighboring  nations 
also.2  In  other  words,  he  begins  to  free  the  idea  of 
justice,  of  good,  from  national  and  legal  limitations, 
giving  to  the  morality  he  preaches  an  international 
significance.3  Crude  and  vague  as  it  undoubtedly  was 
in  particulars,  it  now  was  capable  of  developing  into 
rules  of  action  that  have  universal  validity. 

Since  the  issue  is  charged  with  ethical  consequences, 
it  devolves  upon  us,  at  this  point,  to  enquire  whether 
Amos  was  a  monotheist.  In  my  opinion  this  question 
must  be  unhesitatingly  answered  in  the  negative. 
There  are  those  who  have  seen  in  him  an  "uncom- 
promising monotheist."  But  this  view  rests  either 
upon  a  loose  interpretation  of  the  term  monotheism, 
or  upon  an  imperfect  understanding  of  the  course  of 
religious  development  in  Israel.  Strictly  understood, 
monotheism  means  belief  in  the  existence  of  one  God 

1  On  justice  in  the  system  of  Thomas  Aquinas,  cf.  W.  H.  V.  Reade, 
The  Moral  System  of  Dante's  Inferno;  for  a  general  treatment  of  the  sub- 
ject, cf.  Edward  Westcrmarck,  The  Origin  and  Development  of  the  Moral 
Ideas,  and  Herbert  Spencer,  Principles  of  Ethics,  I,  Justice. 

2  Am.  1:3,  13;  2:  1. 

8  Cf.  Marti,  Geschichte  der  israelitischen  Religion  (5th  ed.)  p.  189. 


144  THE  0LD  TESTAMENT 

only,  whose  rule  is  universal.  In  the  literature  illus- 
trating religious  ideas  before  and  during  the  time  of 
Amos  there  is  no  evidence  of  such  monotheism.  Jahveh 
was  the  God  of  Israel  and  to  him  alone  the  nation  owed 
fealty  and  worship.  But  every  Israelite  knew  and  be- 
lieved that  other  nations  also  had  their  gods,  whose 
real  existence  no  one  doubted.  From  one  point  of 
view  this  was  henotheism,  from  another  monolatry. 
But  under  no  circumstances  may  one  claim  mono- 
theism for  Amos.  Consideration  of  certain  expressions 
employed  by  him  makes  it  very  improbable  that  he 
ever  speculated  upon  the  subject  at  all. 

Belief  in  the  existence  of  other  deities  carried  with  it 
the  correlate  idea  of  a  separate  domain  within  which 
each  god  exercised  power.  "Jahveh's  inheritance," 
for  instance,  is  Palestine,  and  one  who  passed  beyond 
the  boundaries  of  the  country  left  Jahveh  behind,  and 
had  to  place  himself  under  the  protection  of  "other 
gods"  whose  domain  he  has  entered.1  Jahveh,  there- 
fore, as  we  have  pointed  out  elsewhere,  was  not  su- 
preme over  the  world ;  he  was  a  part  of  it.  He  still  was 
intramundane  in  the  popular  phraseology. 

Amos,  seemingly,  did  not  share  this  view  of  Jahveh's 
place  and  power  in  its  earlier  crude  form.  But  it  is 
apparent  that  he  was  not  working  with  a  fundamen- 
tally different  conception.  He  still  thought  that  foreign 
lands  were  "polluted"  because  of  the  presence  of  other 
deities.2    To  emphasize  the  impossibility  of  escape 

1  I  Sam.  26: 19;  Gen.  4: 14.  2  Am.  7: 17. 


PIONEERS  OF  A  NEW  ERA        145 

from  punishment,  he  declared  that  Jahveh  will  bring 
up  those  who  dig  through  into  the  underworld,  and 
bring  down  those  who  climb  up  into  heaven.1  Even  on 
the  supposition  that  he  employed  here  figures  of  speech 
one  cannot  ignore  the  tacit  assumption  that  Jahveh's 
proper  dwelling-place  and  judgment-seat  is  in  Pales- 
tine, the  prophet's  material  world  of  daily  experience. 
Amos  has  not  yet  attained,  in  his  thought  of  Jahveh's 
rule,  to  a  world  that  is  an  ordered  whole,  a  cosmos, 
over  every  part  of  which  the  will  of  Jahveh  is  supreme. 
This  inference  is  supported  by  the  fact  that  the  idea 
of  God's  creatorship  is  found  nowhere  in  the  extant 
writings  of  Amos.2  The  occurrence  of  this  idea  of 
creatorship  would  be  presumptive  evidence  of  a 
cosmic  conception  of  the  world,  and  consequently  of 
monotheism.  During  the  post-exilic  period  of  conscious 
speculative  monotheism  the  idea  of  God's  creatorship 
is  nearly  always  associated  with  the  thought  of  his 
unity  and  universality. 

The  important  point  to  note  is  that  in  Amos  Jahveh 
still  is  intramundane,  and  monotheism,  when  it  emerges, 
rests  not  upon  an  intramundane,  but  a  supramundane, 
or  quasi-transcendental  conception  of  God.  But  may 
not  Amos  have  been  an  "ethical "  monotheist,  as  some 
have  claimed?  He  mentions  the  Philistines  and  the 
Aramaeans  as  people  over  whose  movements  Jahveh 

1  Am.  9:2;  cf.  Lods,  La  croyance  <2  la  vie  future  et  le  culte  des  morts,  vol. 
I,  p.  225;  also  Beer,  Der  biblische  Hades,  p.  7. 

2  The  three  passages,  Am.  4: 13;  5: 8, 9;  and 9: 5, 6,  have  on  independ- 
ent grounds  been  recognized  by  scholars  as  doxological  editorial  additions. 


146  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT 

has  exercised  a  directive  control.  If  the  text  is  reliable, 
an  impious  act  of  the  Moabites  against  Edom  calls 
forth  the  denunciation  of  the  prophet.1  It  would  show- 
that  Amos  believed  his  Israelitic  moral  standard  to  be 
valid  for  non- Israelitic  nations  also.  The  case  is  the 
more  remarkable,  because  the  particular  failure  he  has 
in  mind  is  not  incident  to  an  issue  between  an  Israelite 
and  a  foreigner,  but  concerns  the  inhuman  conduct  of 
one  foreign  nation  toward  another. 

Undoubtedly  Amos  greatly  expanded  the  national- 
god  idea.  From  more  than  one  point  of  view  that  was 
the  psychological  consequence  of  his  proclamation  of 
doom  for  Israel.  If  Jahveh  can  contemplate  the  de- 
struction of  those  whom  alone  he  has  "known  of  all 
the  families  of  the  earth,"  it  raises  the  presumption 
that  his  purposes  must  embrace  more  than  the  for- 
tunes of  Palestine  and  its  people.  He  must  be  able  to 
indemnify  himself  for  the  loss  of  his  worshippers.  These 
considerations  indicate  that  Amos  is  moving  in  the 
direction  of  a  cosmic  conception  of  God.  The  close 
connection  between  the  idea  of  God  and  the  idea  of 
moral  obligation  appears  in  the  correlate  extension  of 
the  sway  of  moral  law  beyond  the  boundaries  of  Pales- 
tine. The  propulsive  power  is  his  sense  of  Jahveh's 
ethical  will,  expressing  itself  in  the  positive  require- 
ments of  a  moral  law. 

However,  the  conclusion  that  Amos  logically  in- 
ferred the  universal  rule  of  God  from  his  belief  in  the 

1  Am.  2:1. 


PIONEERS   OF   A   NEW   ERA         147 

universal  validity  of  moral  law  is  not  warranted  by  the 
facts.  Amos  was  not  working  with  an  abstract  con- 
ception of  moral  law.  He  as  well  as  later  Hebrew 
prophets  were  almost  painfully  concrete  in  their  mental 
processes.  When  we  come  to  those  points  in  his  writ- 
ings where  the  broader  humanitarian  view  of  God  and 
the  world,  which  one  is  accustomed  to  associate  with 
ethical  monotheism,  might  be  expected  to  manifest 
itself,  we  find  he  is  still  speaking  the  language  of  He- 
brew particularism.  The  tone  in  which  he  refers  to  the 
Philistines  and  Aramaeans,  and  especially  his  clap- 
perclaw reference  to  the  Cushites,1  reinforce  his  as- 
sertion that  Jahveh  has  "known"2  the  Israelites 
only.  In  other  words,  he  expands  the  national-god- 
idea,  but  does  not  burst  it.  God's  impartial  fatherly 
interest  in  all  men  is  not  yet  an  article  of  his  faith. 
This  view  of  the  limitations  of  Amos'  contribution  to 
Israel's  growing  knowledge  of  God  agrees  also  with  the 
otherwise  remarkable  fact  that  not  even  the  Deuter- 
onomic  writers,  more  than  a  century  later,  had  arrived 
at  a  clear  monotheistic  conception  of  God. 

When  Thomas  Aquinas  noted  as  a  distinguishing 
characteristic  of  the  Old  Testament  that  it  did  not 
undertake  to  punish  the  soul  3  he  saw  more  clearly  than 
most  modern  readers  of  the  prophets.  It  requires  con- 
siderable familiarity  with  ancient  modes  of  thought 
to  remain  conscious  of  the  fact  that  no  ancient  Hebrew 

1  Am.  9:7  ("Ethiopians").  *  Am.  3:2. 

8  "Lex  vetusanimum  non  cohibcbat."  Summa  Theol. 


148  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

practised  religion  in  order  to  save  his  soul,  in  the  New 
Testament  sense  of  that  expression.  He  would  have 
understood  and  used  the  phrase  in  the  sense  of  pro- 
longing life  on  earth,  that  being  the  chief  benefit  which 
he  anticipated  from  the  faithful  performance  of  reli- 
gious duties.  True,  he  believed  in  a  shadowy  existence 
beyond  the  grave.  But  he  had  no  expectation  of  a 
future  life  in  which  Jahveh  might  reward  his  virtues  or 
punish  his  sins.  Sheol  was  a  cheerless  and  shadowy 
place  where  neither  rewards  nor  punishments  were 
distributed.  Hence  the  religious  economy  of  the  Old 
Testament  concerns  itself  solely  with  man's  earthly 
life.  Only  in  the  land  of  the  living  can  the  worshipper 
maintain  relations  with  the  deity,  or  become  the  object 
of  his  regard.1 

However,  a  moral  order,  to  be  authoritative,  must 
have  power  to  reward  obedience  and  to  enforce  it  with 
penalties.  In  the  theology  of  Amos  and  his  contempo- 
raries, this  difficulty  was  met  by  the  time-honored 
belief  that  Jahveh 's  rewards  were  bestowed  in  the  form 
of  material  prosperity  and  the  perpetuity  of  national 
existence.  On  the  other  hand,  sword,  drought,  pesti- 
lence, and  all  the  various  misfortunes  of  life  were  his 
instruments  of  punishment.  The  highest  reward  of 
Hebrew  virtue,  therefore,  could  be  only  a  tangible  and 
earthly  good,2  and  no  punishment  could  extend  beyond 
the  body  and  the  possessions  that  minister  to  its  com- 

1  Ps.  6:5;  30:9. 

2  "Bonum  sensibile  et  terrenum"  in  the  apt  phrase  of  Thomas 
Aquinas. 


PIONEERS  OF  A  NEW  ERA        149 

fort  and  joy.  Though  the  story  of  Job  belongs  to  a 
later  period  of  developed  individualism  it  illustrates 
the  point  under  discussion  here.  Possessions,  family, 
self  —  this  is  the  order  of  values.  "  All  that  a  man  has, 
will  he  give  for  his  life."  Death  is  the  last  blow  which 
the  punishing  hand  of  the  deity  may  deal.  Disease  and 
extinction  of  issue  only  increase  the  terrors  of  its 
approach. 

A  very  important  fact  to  observe  in  this  ante-mortem 
theodicy  is  its  communal  application.  The  benefits 
and  penalties  of  religion,  especially  during  the  pre-exilic 
period,  were  believed  to  be  administered  primarily  to 
the  nation.  This  was  a  perfectly  natural  expectation, 
since  religion  existed  for  the  purpose  of  preserving 
organized  society,  the  state.  Hence  the  duties  of  reli- 
gion and  of  citizenship  were  identical.  Long  experience 
had  taught  ancient  societies  that  the  individual  is  safe 
only  behind  the  bulwark  of  a  strong  and  stable  social 
organization.  Preservation  of  the  clan  is  self-preserva- 
tion. This  fact  explains  the  intense  feeling  of  group 
solidarity  which  pervades  Hebrew  literature  in  song 
and  in  story.  It  also  suggests  why  religion  was  a 
part  of  every  Israelite's  solicitude  for  the  continu- 
ance of  his  nation,  and  why  in  time  of  danger  or 
of  conquest  it  stalked  arm  in  arm  with  savage  pas- 
sions across  the  bloody  battlefields  of  the  "wars  of 
Jahveh." 

The  following  arrangement  will  summarize  and 
bring  out  graphically  the  chief  differences  between  the 


150 


THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 


religious  conceptions  of  the  pre-exilic  prophets  and 
those  of  the  New  Testament :  — 


Pre-exilic  0.  T.  Prophets 

Subject  of  religion:  the  historical 
people  of  Israel  with  its  political 
and  social  institutions. 

Point  of  view:  communal-na- 
tional. 

Jahveh,  God  of  Israel  only. 

Jahveh,  though  invisible  is  of  this 
world  and  dwells  particularly  in 
Palestine.  Intramundane. 

No  heaven  and  no  hell. 

No  mention  of  the  devil  or  of 
Satan. 

The  body  alone  subject  to  punish- 
ment or  reward,  and  only  during 
its  earthly  existence. 

Benefits  of  religion,  material. 
Peace  and  prosperity  of  the  es- 
tates of  the  realm. 


New  Testament 

Subject  of  religion:  the  individual 
soul,  conceived  to  be  eternal  and 
immortal. 

Point  of  view:  individualistic- 
humanitarian. 

"Our  Father,"  God  of  all  man- 
kind. 

"Our  Father,  who  art  in  heaven," 
Transcendent. 


of  a   developed 
identified     with 


Heaven  and  hell 

The    devil    part 
demonology ; 
Satan. 

Punishment  of  the  body  in  this  life 
a  secondary  consideration.  Em- 
phasis upon  punishments  and 
rewards  of  the  soul  after  death. 

Benefits  of  religion,  spiritual. 
Peace  of  conscience  as  a  sign  of 
healthy  spiritual  life. 


To  these  controlling  conceptions  must  be  added  the 
further  fact  that  the  morality  of  the  prophets  is  not 
the  inner,  universal  morality  of  the  human  soul,  but  the 
civic  and  social  morality  of  the  Hebrew  as  a  member  of 
the  Israelite  commonwealth.  It  is  this  latter  morality 
of  which  Amos  conceives  Jahveh  to  be  guardian  and 
which,  together  with  the  purely  mundane  benefits  of 
its  practice,  he  has  in  mind  when  he  says,  "Seek  good 
and  not  evil,  that  ye  may  live." 1  Jahveh's  favor  is  the 
guarantee  of  the  nation's  life,  of  its  perpetuity.  Accord- 
ing to  current  popular  views  it  is  secured  by  abundant 

1  Am.  5:14. 


PIONEERS  OF  A  NEW  ERA        151 

sacrifices  and  the  faithful  observances  of  feast-days 
and  ceremonial.  According  to  Amos  it  can  be  secured 
only  by  the  honest  administration  of  justice;1  by  the 
retention  of  simple  life  and  manners;2  by  the  protec- 
tion of  the  weak  and  the  poor;3  by  the  practice  of 
honesty  and  brotherliness; 4  and  by  the  eschewing  of 
sexual  and  other  excesses.6 

Measured  by  Christian  standards  this  morality  is  so 
simple,  and  so  close  to  the  earth,  that  it  scarcely  comes 
within  sight  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  But  so 
fundamental  was  it  in  its  simplicity,  that  it  turned  the 
whole  course  of  Israel's  religious  development  into  a 
new  channel.  Henceforward  the  homage  of  moral  con- 
duct, be  it  ever  so  crude,  is  deemed  an  essential  divine 
requirement. 

It  remains  in  conclusion  to  discuss  specifically  Amos' 
idea  of  retribution.  In  the  light  of  the  foregoing  dis- 
cussion his  pronouncement  of  doom  upon  Israel 
appears  in  its  proper  conceptual  background.  Eternal 
punishment,  or  eternal  death,  is  its  corresponding 
equivalent  in  Christian  theology.  Nothing  was  so 
potent  to  arouse  the  fear  of  an  Israelite  as  the  pros- 
pect of  national,  and  consequently  individual,  destruc- 
tion. In  the  proclamation  of  its  coming,  contingent 
upon  conduct,  lay  the  prophet's  power  to  force  the 
hand. 

The   Deuteronomic  reformation  is  a  historical  ex- 

1  Am.  2:6;  5: 10,  15.  2  Am.  6:4/.  3  Am.  5:  n;  8:6. 

*  Am.  5: 12;  8:5.  5  Am.  2:7. 


152  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

ample  of  the  effect  produced  by  such  fears.  The  com- 
mon assumption  that  the  moral  law  could  hardly 
command  obedience,  without  the  belief  in  retribution 
beyond  the  grave,  is  contradicted  by  the  moral  expe- 
rience of  Israel,  where  the  expectation  of  post-mortem 
rewards  and  punishments  was  still  far  below  the  hori- 
zon. But  there  was  an  expectation  of  retribution  in 
this  world  of  which  the  prophets  make  effective  use. 
It  was  the  traditional  force  of  ancient  beliefs,  as  well 
as  the  exigencies  of  his  own  moral  philosophy,  that 
constrained  Amos  to  give  to  every  public  calamity  a 
sinister  meaning.  Earthquake,  solar  eclipse,  drought, 
famine,  locusts,  disease,  were  interpreted  as  divine 
punishments,  and  as  premonitions  of  the  final  catas- 
trophe. So  long  as  the  people,  rather  than  the  indi- 
vidual, was  conceived  to  be  the  subject  of  retribution, 
the  inadequacy  of  this  theory  was  not  strongly  felt. 
Later  the  rise  of  individualistic  tendencies  made  it 
increasingly  untenable. 

But  we  cannot  concern  ourselves  here  with  the 
ethical  defects  of  this  somewhat  superstitious  view  of 
God's  moral  government  of  the  world.  The  needed 
corrections  were  destined  to  be  made  by  the  remoter 
successors  of  Amos.  It  is  sufficient  to  remember  that 
this  was  but  a  part  of  a  mass  of  other  ideas  equally 
crude,  equally  untrue,  and  equally  far  behind  the 
moral  and  scientific  discernment  of  our  time.  Nor 
can  we  prudently  forget,  regarding  the  philosophical 
inwardness  of  some  of  these  problems,  that  our  age 


PIONEERS  OF  A  NEW  ERA         153 

is  not  much  wiser  —  only  more  cautious.  Our  object 
has  been  to  see  Amos  in  his  environment  of  men, 
ideas,  and  institutions,  to  discover  the  new  stimulus 
he  gave  to  the  religious  development  of  his  time.  If 
it  appears  that  he  also  "could  but  speak  his  music  by 
the  framework  and  the  chord,"  that  truth  and  preju- 
dice, ignorance  and  wisdom,  are  strangely  mixed  in 
the  fervid  poetry  of  his  thought,  what  have  we  but 
a  new  reminder  of  the  simple  fact  that  Amos,  the 
prophet,  was  also  a  Hebrew  herdsman  of  the  eighth 
century  B.C. 

11 

Between  the  period  of  Hosea's  activity  and  that  of 
his  elder  contemporary  Amos  there  intervene  at  most 
only  twenty  years.  Both  belong  to  the  middle  of  the 
eighth  century  B.C.  It  is  not  surprising,  therefore, 
that  Hosea  presents  substantially  the  same  conception 
of  God  and  defends  the  same  ethical  ideals.  Since  the 
fundamental  generalizations  of  the  foregoing  discus- 
sion of  Amos  hold  true  also  of  the  theology  and  the 
world-view  of  Hosea,  it  is  not  necessary  to  take  up 
these  common  elements  anew. 

A  determining  peculiarity  of  Hosea's  thought  is 
the  background  of  marital  experience  which  gives  a 
characteristic  color  and  quality  to  his  writings.1    His 

1  Besides  numerous  glosses,  the  following  longer  passages  are  later 
additions,  or  doubtful,  and  have  not  been  utilized  in  this  study:  Hos. 
1:7;  1:10-2:1;  2:14-23;  3:1-5  (?);  4:15;  5:15-6:3;  6:11  ;  8:4-6;  8:14; 
10:3-4;  11:8-12;  12:4-6;  12:9-10;  12:12-14;  13:4;  14: 1-9;  10:  12  prob- 
ably is  only  misplaced. 


154  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

domestic  tragedy  yields  him  the  conceptual  apparatus 
of  his  argument.  Jahveh's  relation  to  Israel,  he  holds, 
is  like  that  of  a  husband  to  his  wife.1  Out  of  the  con- 
flicting passions  of  one  of  the  deepest  emotional  ex- 
periences of  which  the  human  heart  is  capable  he  de- 
picts Jahveh  yearning  over  his  wayward  people  as  he 
himself  is  yearning  over  his  unfaithful  wife.  This  is 
obviously  the  reason  why  he  places  loyal  love 2  (hesed) , 
rather  than  justice  in  the  foreground  of  his  thought 
as  Jahveh's  supreme  requirement.  Consequently,  also, 
he  appeals  to  the  love  rather  than  the  fear  of  God  in 
the  motives  he  urges  for  the  realization  of  his  ethical 
ideals  in  the  life  of  the  nation.  He  is  thus  a  more 
winning  preacher  of  morals  than  Amos,  in  so  far  as 
the  sweet  constraint  of  love  is  greater  and  more  last- 
ing than  the  compulsion  of  fear.  Perhaps  some  of  these 
differences  are  to  be  sought  in  temperament  as  much 
as  in  the  personal  experiences  that  form  the  back- 
ground of  their  respective  messages.  The  following 
tabular  comparison  will  make  the  correspondences 
and  differences  more  apparent :  — 

1  Both  the  land  and  its  people  appear  in  this  r61e.  Cf .  1:2  where  the 
land  is  the  "mother";  in  5:  7  and  6:  4  the  people  are  in  the  mind  of  the 
prophet.   For  "baal"  as  owner  and  husband  see  p.  192. 

2  Hesed  is  difficult  to  translate  because  it  comprehends  several  mean- 
ings which  must  be  rendered  by  different  words  in  English.  Thus  it 
signifies  not  only  "  goodness"  and  "kindness,"  but  also  "love"  or  "af- 
fection" as  shown  by  the  parallel  phrase  "love  of  thine  espousals"  [to 
Jahveh]  in  Jer.  2:2.  The  context  and  symbolism  show  that  Hosea  uses 
the  word  primarily  in  this  sense.  But  because  he  intentionally  lets  it 
overflow  into  other  meanings  in  the  same  connection  I  have  indicated 
its  occurrence  parenthetically  in  the  translations. 


PIONEERS  OF  A   NEW   ERA         155 
Amos  Hosea 

Jahveh,  a  righteous  Judge.  Jahveh,  a  loving  but  outraged  and 

"I  hate,  I  despise  your  sacrificial         angry  husband. 

feasts. .  .  .  Let  justice  roll  down  ' '  I  desire  love  (hesed)  and  not  sacri- 
like  waters  and  righteousness  as  fice;  the  knowledge  of  God  and 
an  everflowing  stream."  *  not  burnt-offerings."  2 

"Seek  good  and  not  evil,  that  ye  " Sow  for  yourselves  righteousness, 
may  live  .  .  .  and  establish  jus-  reap  the  fruit  of  love  (hesed); 
tice  in  the  gate."  3  break  up  your  fallow  ground  of 

knowledge  that  he  may  come  and 
rain  righteousness  upon  you."  * 

Hosea  complains  "There  is  no  faithfulness  ('emeth), 
nor  love  (hesed) ,  nor  knowledge  (da'  ath)  of  God  in  the 
land.  There  is  nought  but  swearing  and  breaking 
faith,  and  killing,  and  stealing,  and  committing  adul- 
tery." 5  These  are  the  same  social  sins  that  Amos  had 
denounced.  But  one  member  of  the  trinity  of  moral 
qualities,  whose  absence  Hosea  deplores,  was  never 
mentioned  by  Amos  —  the  "knowledge  of  God."  To 
understand  thereby  an  intellectual  apprehension  of 
divine  requirements  would  be  a  mistake.  Not  to 
"know,"  as  here  used,  means  not  to  "care  for,"  or  not 
to  "have  intercourse  with."  6 

Hosea  means  by  "knowledge  of  God"  the  serious 
endeavor    to    maintain    respectful    and    loving    reli- 

1  Am.  5:21  /. 

2  Hos.  6:  6;  "more  than  burnt-offerings,"  R.V.,  is  not  according  to  the 
text  and  destroys  the  force  of  the  original.  The  translators  tried  to  save 
a  place  for  sacrifice  in  spite  of  Hosea. 

3  Am.  5:14,  15. 

4  Hos.  10: 12,  according  to  the  LXX.  Cf.  Hos.  4: 1. 
6  Hos.  4:1/. 

6  Cf.  Baumann,  "Yada"  und  seine  Derivate,"  ZAW,  no  ff.  (1908). 
The  Hebrew  meaning  of  the  word  has  been  carried  over  into  English  in 
the  Biblical  phrase,  "he  knew  his  wife,"  etc.  Cf.  also  I  Sam.  2:  12,  where 
Kittel  (HSAT,  p.  382)  rightly  translates  .  .  .  "  nichtswurdige  Menschen, 
die  sich  urn  Jahwe  nicht  kiimmerten." 


156  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT 

gious  intercourse  with  Jahveh.  Hence,  when  he  com- 
plains that  there  is  "no  knowledge  of  God  in  the 
land,"  he  does  not  have  ignorance  in  mind,  but  de- 
liberate and  culpable  neglect  of  Jahveh's  will  as  it  was 
then  understood.  It  cannot  be  denied  that  Hosea, 
at  this  point  in  his  theology,  is  phraseologically  de- 
pendent on  the  prevailing  physical  mode  of  thought 
according  to  which  Jahveh  is  the  husband  and  owner, 
the  baal,  of  the  land.  The  fruitfulness  of  the  soil,  the 
increase  of  the  flocks,  and  the  growth  of  the  popula- 
tion are  evidence  of  a  harmonious  relationship.  An 
estrangement  is  followed  by  drought,  famine,  and 
death.1  Thus  wedlock  becomes  his  symbol  for  religion, 
whoredom  for  idolatry,  and  "knowing  Jahveh"  is 
terminology  borrowed  from  the  Semitic  vocabulary 
of  sex  relations,  for  the  purpose  of  designating  accept- 
able religious  intercourse  with  Jahveh.  "The  spirit 
of  whoredom  is  within  them  and  they  know  not  (i.e., 
care  not  about)  Jahveh."  2  He  declares  there  is  a 
false  and  a  right  way  of  maintaining  relations  with 
Jahveh ;  the  former  is  by  sacrifice  and  burnt-offerings, 
the  latter  by  love  and  the  knowledge  of  God.  The  fore- 
going explanation  shows  why  Hebrew  parallelism  can 
employ  knowledge  of  God  and  love  as  practical  equiv- 
alents. The  scheme  of  marital  symbolism  which  forms 
the  framework  of  his  sermons  accounts  for  his  choice 
of  these  expressions. 

Once  the  word  "knowledge"  occurs  in  an  absolute 

1  Hos.  4:3;  cf.  also  9:14.  2Hos.5:4. 


PIONEERS  OF  A  NEW  ERA        157 

sense,  and  in  a  connection  in  which  it  seems  to  be 
equivalent  to  "the  law  {tdrah)  of  your  God."  1  This 
raises  the  question  how  much  importance  Hosea  at- 
tached to  the  administration  of  justice  as  a  religious 
requirement.  Ordinarily  tdrah,  during  the  pre-exilic 
period,  referred  to  the  traditional  precedents  or  deci- 
sions of  customary  law.  The  so-called  Book  of  the 
Covenant,  Ex.  20-23,  ls  one  of  the  earliest  written  col- 
lections of  such  decisions.  They  were  of  divine  origin, 
according  to  popular  belief,  and  included  both  civil 
and  ceremonial  law.  From  ancient  times  it  was  the 
peculiar  duty  and  prerogative  of  the  priests  to  dispense 
justice.  Where  possible,  this  was  done  by  precedent 
according  to  the  traditional  digest  of  "statutes," 
which  it  was  the  duty  of  the  priests  to  know.  In  new 
and  difficult  cases,  it  seems,  the  priests  also  had  recourse 
to  the  sacred  lot,2  or  rendered  judgment  according  to 
the  assumed  principles  underlying  existing  decisions.3 
The  general  prevalence  of  bribery,  and  the  depravity 
of  the  priesthood,  made  this  system  peculiarly  liable 
to  abuse.  Since  the  priests  were  custodians  also  of 
ceremonial  law  the  sacrificial  system  afforded  them 
another  opportunity  to  profit  by  the  imposition  of  sac- 
rificial fines.  This  fact  must  be  taken  into  account 
in  connection  with  the  prophetic  crusade  against  the 
sacrificial  system. 

1  Hos.  4:6;  cf.  Gutho,  Hosea,  p.  7,  in  Kautzsch's  HSAT. 

2  Cf.  I  Sam.  14:41  /.,  and  art.  "Urim  and  Thummim,"  by  G.  F. 
Moore  in  Ency.  Bib. 

8  Cf.  Ex.  18;  Hos.  8:12. 


158  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

The  maladministration  of  justice  is  one  of  the  seri- 
ous and  wide-spread  sins  in  Israel  which  the  prophets 
never  tire  of  denouncing.  It  is  difficult  to  suppose  that 
Hosea  did  not  have  in  mind  these  corrupt  practices 
of  the  priests  when  he  inveighs  against  them,1  however 
far  his  moral  demands  may  outreach  the  formal  ad- 
ministration of  justice.  They  are  the  more  culpable 
in  his  eyes  because  they  are  the  recognized  custodians 
of  "decisions"  whose  patron  and  author  is  Jahveh. 
Marti  infers,  doubtless  rightly,  that  the  failure  of  the 
prophets  to  appeal  to  such  torah  collections  as  Hosea 
apparently  knew  2  is  to  be  taken  as  evidence  that  they 
did  not  consider  their  observance  an  adequate  dis- 
charge of  religious  duty.3  Here  also  one  must  reckon 
with  Hosea's  transfer  of  emphasis  from  mere  justice 
to  that  many-sided  attitude  of  love  toward  God  and 
man  which  is  the  source  both  of  justice  and  of  the 
gentler  human  virtues.  Jahveh,  declares  Hosea,  de- 
sires not  the  sacrificial  cult,  but  the  maintenance  of 
those  social  virtues  among  Israelites  which  insure  the 
stability  of  their  society.  Just  as  in  human  relations 
the  fulfilment  of  a  loved  one's  wishes  passes  from  duty 
to  privilege,  so  a  sense  of  personal  attachment  to  Jah- 
veh must  transform  a  perfunctory  into  a  spontaneous 
observance  of  his  will. 

What  the  prophet   conceived   to  be  the  particular 
content  of  that  will  it  is  not  so  easy  to  say.    Nearly  the 

1  Hos.  4:4-11.  *  Hos.  8:12. 

8  Marti,  Geschichte  der  israelitischen  Religion  (5th  ed.).  P-  184. 


PIONEERS  OF  A  NEW  ERA         159 

same  considerations  apply  here  as  were  discussed  under 
the  heading  of  what  Amos  meant  by  "good."  The 
student  who  wishes  to  proceed  historically  must  be 
prepared  to  admit  that  Hosea  would  have  included, 
and  did  include,  under  the  will  of  Jahveh  demands 
which  no  enlightened  conscience  of  to-day  could  pos- 
sibly accept  as  divine,  except  in  so  far  as  the  operation 
of  the  divine  spirit  is  believed  to  manifest  itself  even 
in  the  imperfect  aspirations  of  the  human  soul  after 
good.  It  must  be  remembered  that  the  prophets  un- 
consciously thought  of  God  in  terms  of  the  highest 
in  themselves,  even  as  do  the  men  of  our  time.  But 
our  conception  of  what  is  good  and  admirable  in  con- 
duct and  personality  has  been  refined  by  nineteen 
Christian  centuries  of  philosophical  and  ethical  devel- 
opment. If  what  we  now  conceive  to  be  the  unity  of 
men's  highest  ideals  proves  but  an  inadequate  repre- 
sentation of  the  divine,  how  much  less  could  Hosea  and 
his  contemporaries,  amid  the  crude  moral  environ- 
ment of  the  eighth  century  B.C.,  be  expected  to  portray 
the  eternal  acceptably  with  colors  borrowed  from 
their  own  feelings,  experiences,  and  convictions!  It 
is  not  surprising,  as  we  shall  see,  that  he  fell  into  some 
errors  which  it  is  our  duty  to  recognize  as  such. 

Obviously ,  the  hoped-for  reward  of  piety  is  for  Hosea, 
as  for  Amos,  the  prosperity  of  the  nation  and  its  pres- 
ervation. One  cannot  help  marvelling  at  the  manner 
in  which  the  prophets  transformed  into  a  potent  factor 
of  civic  moral  progress,  this  eagerness  for  social,  ante- 


160  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

mortem  benefits  from  religion.  Hosea's  own  deepening 
ethical  conception  of  Jahveh  as  the  guardian  of  civic 
righteousness  has  given  him  a  keen  eye  for  the  moral 
failings  of  his  people.  Justice,  social  corruption,  re- 
liance on  a  Canaanitish  Jahveh-cult,  and  foreign  poli- 
tical alliances,  he  thinks,  have  left  Jahveh  no  alter- 
native but  the  destruction  of  the  nation.  But  the 
language  in  which  he  expresses  this  conviction,  as  a 
threat  from  Jahveh,  is  so  full  of  savage  passion  that  it 
grates  on  the  ear:  "Therefore  am  I  to  them  a  lion;  as  a 
leopard  will  I  watch  by  the  way ;  I  will  meet  them  as 
a  bear  that  is  bereaved  of  her  whelps,  and  will  rend 
the  caul  of  their  heart;  then  will  I  devour  them  as  a 
lion,  like  a  wild  beast  tear  them  in  pieces."  l  In  two 
other  passages  the  barbarous  slaughter  of  women  and 
children,  a  common  incident  of  Semitic  warfare,  is 
placed  in  prospect  as  a  manifestation  of  Jahveh's 
undiscriminating  vengeance.2 

These  judgments,  attributed  to  God  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, are  rarely  anything  else  than  actual  or  antici- 
pated occurrences  translated  into  acts  of  Jahveh,  and 
considered  in  the  light  of  primitive  human  justice  — 
half  punishment  and  half  outrage.  The  punishment  of 
children  for  the  sins  of  the  fathers  presented  no  ethical 
difficulty  under  the  group  morality  system  of  the  time. 
Hosea  was  not  far  enough  along  on  the  road  to  indi- 
vidualism to  question  the  justice  of  such  punishment. 
The  Hebrew  prophet  believed  that  earthquakes  and 

1  Hos.  13:7,  8.  2  Hos.  10:14;  13:16. 


PIONEERS  OF  A   NEW  ERA        161 

eclipses  of  the  sun  could  be  warded  off  as  easily  as  a 
pestilence  —  by  the  recovery  of  Jahveh's  favor;  for 
all  were  manifestations  of  divine  wrath.  The  modern 
knows  that  the  pestilence  is  in  his  own  power  if  he  can 
but  find  and  destroy  the  microbe;  that  earthquakes 
are  not  sporadic  irruptions  of  divine  punishment;  and 
that  a  solar  eclipse  is  a  harmless  phenomenon  obeying 
laws  so  regular  that  the  astronomer  can  foretell  its 
advent  to  a  second. 

The  foregoing  considerations  have  directed  atten- 
tion to  figures  of  speech,  used  about  God  or  put  into  his 
mouth,  that  may  become  a  source  of  immoral  con- 
ceptions about  him.  This  danger  is  especially  great 
under  the  old  static  view  of  revelation,  which  still 
lies  as  a  tacit  assumption  behind  the  preaching  of 
many  pulpits,  and  by  force  of  traditional  momentum 
carries  along  nearly  the  entire  Biblical  instruction  of 
the  young.  Thus  it  happens,  through  ignorance  of  the 
facts  of  Israel's  moral  development  on  the  one  hand, 
and  a  false  view  of  revelation  on  the  other,  that  de- 
plorably crude  and  immoral  ideas  about  God  are 
still  imparted  as  the  "word  of  God."  The  corrective 
lies  in  realizing  the  fact  that  the  prophets  naively  at- 
tributed to  God  their  own  feelings  and  sentiments, 
which  naturally  did  not  rise  at  all  points  superior 
to  the  moral  and  aesthetic  limitations  of  their  age. 
"Jahveh  said  unto  Hosca,  go  take  unto  thee  an  im- 
pure wife,"  l  illustrates,  for  instance,  a  not  uncommon 

1  Hos.  1:2. 


162  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

practice  of  Hebrew  prophets  to  sanction  the  beginning 
of  a  course  of  events  by  the  outcome.1  Hosea,  brood- 
ing over  his  domestic  sorrow,  viewed  it  in  the  light 
of  his  later  ministry  as  his  divine  call,  —  God's  rear- 
most thought.  But  it  does  not  follow  that  he  was  ac- 
tually divinely  directed  to  marry  a  woman  preordained 
to  prove  unfaithful  to  him,  in  order  that  this  bitter 
experience  might  prove  helpful  to  him  in  his  ministry. 
Both  the  teaching  of  Jesus  and  a  deeper  religious 
philosophy  require  us  to  dissent  from  a  theory  of  de- 
terminism that  makes  God  operate  with  evil  in  order 
to  effect  his  purpose.  We  face  an  element  here,  in 
Hosea's  conception  of  God's  providence,  that  was 
borrowed  from  his  time.  That  is  its  historical  justi- 
fication. But  for  its  literal  use  and  interpretation  in 
these  days  there  is  no  justification  except  that  of  ig- 
norance. A  declaration  based  on  similar  naive  presup- 
positions, and  put  into  the  mouth  of  God,  is  the  follow- 
ing: "  I  have  given  thee  a  king  in  mine  anger,  and  have 
taken  him  away  in  my  wrath."  2  The  service  of  the 
Bible  to  the  higher  Christian  culture  of  our  time  must 
suffer  grievous  harm  if  such  passages  are  used  by  the 
unthinking  to  propagate  immoral  ideas  about  God. 

Hosea's  depiction  of  Jahveh  as  an  injured  husband 
gave  a  new  impulse  to  the  possibly  already  existing 
disposition  to  represent  him  as  actuated  by  feelings 
of  jealousy.3  Since  jealousy  implies  an  attitude  toward 

1  Cf.  Is.  6:%ff.  and  Jer.  32: 8.         2  Hos.  13: 11;  cf.  Ezek.  20:25. 
1  Cf.  Kuchler,  Der  Gedanke  des  Eifers  Jahwes  im  A.T.,  ZAW  (1908), 
p.  42  ff.  (Ex.  20:5;  34: 14;  and  Josh.  24: 19  may  be  later  than  Hosea.) 


PIONEERS  OF  A   NEW  ERA        163 

rivals,  and  must  be  reckoned  among  the  ignoble  pas- 
sions, its  attribution  to  God,  the  Absolute,  should 
now  be  accounted  an  intolerable  anthropopathism. 
Hosea's  use  of  the  idea,  however,  may  be  taken,  among 
other  things,  as  evidence  that  he  still  believed  in  the 
reality  of  other  gods.  Other  primitive  ideas,  brought 
over  from  an  earlier  period,  survive  in  his  thought. 
He  regards  Palestine  as  the  "land  of  Jahveh,"  and 
assumes  that  in  Assyria  the  food  of  the  Israelites  will 
be  in  a  state  of  "pollution,"  because  it  is  impossible  to 
consecrate  it  there  by  dedicating  the  prescribed  por- 
tions to  Jahveh.1  Apparently  Jahveh  was  still  believed 
to  be  inseparable  from  Palestine ;  in  at  least  one  speech 
of  Jahveh  Hosea  makes  him  refer  to  Canaan  as  "my 
house,"2  from  which  the  Israelites  are  to  be  driven 
forth  into  exile.  Hosea,  therefore,  holds  the  same  in- 
tramundane  view  of  Jahveh's  relation  to  the  world 
that  we  found  in  Amos.  It  follows  that,  like  the  latter, 
he  is  not  a  monotheist,  but  a  henotheist.  Since  they 
were  practically  contemporaries,  the  evidence  on  this 
point  in  their  writings  is  mutually  confirmatory. 

In  his  polemic  against  the  Canaanitish  Baal  cult, 
with  which  Jahveh  was  being  worshipped  at  the  high 
places,  Hosea  condemns  particularly  the  employment 
of  images  3  representative  of  Jahveh.  One  can  hardly 
be  far  wrong  in  recognizing  this  fact  as  evidence  of  a 
growing  sense  of  Jahveh's  spirituality,  or  rather  of  the 

1  Hos.  9:3,  4.  -  Hos.  9: 15. 

8  Mostly  bull  images,  contemptuously  referred  to  as  "calves,"  per- 
haps on  account  of  their  diminutive  size.   Hos.  8:4-6;  10:5;  13:2. 


1 64  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT 

supersensuousness  of  his  being.  Other  questions  in- 
volved in  the  prophetic  crusade  against  the  high 
places  are  taken  up  in  connection  with  the  Book  of 
Deuteronomy.  It  must  suffice  here  simply  to  state 
that  the  sacrificial  cult  and  the  high-places  he  is 
attacking  under  the  name  of  Baal  worship  are  not  a 
form  of  foreign  idolatry  but  the  official  Jahveh  wor- 
ship of  his  time. 

Hosea  furnishes  an  interesting  illustration  of  the 
abrogation  of  one  "Thus  saith  the  Lord"  by  another. 
The  ninth  and  tenth  chapters  of  II  Kings  record  Jehu's 
treacherous  massacre  of  the  family  of  King  Ahab. 
Elisha  is  represented  as  having  instigated  the  deed. 
All  the  revolting  details  of  the  long  series  of  murders 
are  recorded.  Then  comes  to  Jehu  the  word  of  Jahveh, 
presumably  through  Elisha:  "Because  thou  hast  ex- 
ecuted well  that  which  was  right  in  mine  eyes,  and 
hast  done  unto  the  house  of  Ahab  according  to  all  that 
was  in  my  heart,  thy  sons  of  the  fourth  generation 
shall  sit  upon  the  throne  of  Israel."  x  This  surprising 
sanction  of  so  horrible  a  deed  illustrates  anew  the  fatal 
facility  with  which  even  a  prophet  like  Elisha  identi- 
fied the  will  of  Jahveh  with  the  rude  morals  and  blood- 
thirsty passions  of  the  day.  Hosea,  standing  upon  the 
higher  moral  ground  of  a  later  century,  declares  his 
conviction  that  the  deed  of  Jehu  was  wicked  and 
ruinous,  and  thus  repudiates  the  sanction  of  Elisha. 
Very  different  is  the  word  of  Jahveh  that  comes  to 

1  II  Kings  io:3o;cf.  9-if- 


PIONEERS  OF  A  NEW  ERA        165 

him :  "Call  his  name  Jezreel ;  for  yet  a  little  while,  and 
I  will  avenge  the  blood  of  Jezreel  upon  the  house  of 
Jehu,  and  will  cause  the  kingdom  of  the  house  of  Is- 
rael to  cease." l  It  is  a  cancellation  of  development,  the 
expression  of  a  more  enlightened  ethical  judgment. 
Comparison  of  these  two  passages  furnishes  an  example 
of  the  moral  value  of  historical  criticism.  Both  theol- 
ogy and  ethics  have  suffered  at  the  hands  of  earnest 
but  misguided  literalists  who  accept  Jahveh's  alleged 
sanction  of  Jehu's  murders,  or  Elijah's  slaughter  of 
the  priests  of  Baal,  as  the  will  of  God.  The  result  of 
Biblical  instruction  which  rests  upon  such  immoral 
presuppositions  about  God  cannot  be  otherwise  than 
intellectually  and  morally  pernicious. 

We  have  already  called  attention  to  an  ignoble  by- 
product of  the  literary  device  by  which  Hosea  pre- 
sents Jahveh  in  the  character  of  a  jealous  husband.  It 
remains  in  conclusion  to  note  a  lasting  advantage. 
The  thought  of  Jahveh's  love,  though  often  obscured, 
never  again  leaves  the  theology  of  Israel.  A  theory 
of  human  conduct,  expressed  or  implied,  that  postu- 
lates temporal  national  well-being  as  the  goal  of  ethics 
and  the  reward  of  piety,  must  be  largely  motivated  by 
prudential  considerations.  In  the  days  of  Amos  and 
Hosea,  goodness  as  an  ideal,  to  be  achieved  primarily 
for  its  own  sake,  still  hides  behind  nearer  and  more 
tangible,  but  also  more  transient  ideals.    The  finer 

1  Hos.  1 : 4;  notes  the  assumption  that  God  punishes  the  whole  nation 
for  the  sin  of  one  of  its  kings. 


166  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT 

moral  distinctions  of  an  individualistic  theory  of 
human  conduct  are  wanting,  and  the  feeling  of  individ- 
ual responsibility  must  have  been  vague.  But  love, 
even  in  the  Hebrew  sense  of  the  word,  looks  toward 
individualism.  Therefore  Hosea  took  a  long  stride 
forward  when  he  declared  that  the  love  of  God  should 
be  the  mainspring  of  human  conduct.  He  drew  the 
larger  circle  which  included  that  of  Amos. 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE  PROPHET  OF  HOLINESS 

Isaiah  ben-Amoz 

Among  the  men  whose  genius  and  devotion  bright- 
ened the  far-off  centuries  of  Israelitish  history  there  is 
no  figure  more  conspicuous  nor  a  mind  more  brilliant 
than  that  of  Isaiah  ben-Amoz.  There  are  at  least  four 
different  aspects  which  his  life  and  writings  present  to 
the  student.  Whether  one  considers  his  career  as  a 
statesman,  as  a  reformer,  as  a  poet,  or  as  a  theologian, 
one  finds  in  each  case  abundant  material  for  thought. 

As  a  statesman  he  first  came  into  prominence  during 
the  Syro-Ephraimitic  invasion,  bravely  trying  to  save 
his  country  from  disastrous  political  entanglements. 
To  him  as  to  other  Hebrew  prophets,  the  affairs  of 
politics  were  not  something  apart  from  his  mission,  for 
he  lost  no  opportunity  to  place  his  hands  upon  the  un- 
steady political  scales  in  which  the  destinies  of  his  na- 
tion were  swaying.  Had  the  Athenian  patriot  Demos- 
thenes sketched  his  ideal  of  a  statesman  with  Isaiah 
in  mind  it  could  hardly  have  resembled  the  Hebrew 
prophet  more  closely.  There  is  good  reason  to  think 
that  on  two  supreme  occasions  his  firmness  and  advice 
were  all  that  prevented  the  collapse  of  the  Judean  state 
a  century  before  it  finally  came. 


1 68  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

Or  is  it  in  the  capacity  of  reformer  that  one  desires 
to  study  him?  —  to  hear  him  thunder  out  his  tremen- 
dous invectives  against  greed  and  injustice,  drunken- 
ness and  idolatrous  superstitions.  It  would  scarcely  be 
possible  to  find  anywhere  a  more  scathing  arraignment 
of  unjust  wealth  concentrated  in  the  hands  of  a  few  than 
the  sixfold  denunciation  beginning:  "Woe  unto  those 
who  join  house  to  house,  who  add  field  to  field  till  there 
is  no  more  room,  and  ye  are  settled  alone  in  the  land."  1 
Here  also  his  profound  insight  into  the  causes  of  na- 
tional decay  has  had  many  sad  vindications  in  the 
downfall  of  states  whose  institutions  had  been  under- 
mined by  these  insidious  vices. 

Less  often  is  Isaiah  mentioned  as  a  poet.  Yet  in  this 
particular  capacity  he  far  outstrips  every  rival  in  the 
field  of  prophecy.  Unfortunately,  the  revisers  of  our 
English  Bible  have  given  no  hint  that  nearly  the  whole 
of  Isaiah's  writings  is  in  poetry,  for  while  they  have 
adopted  the  metrical  form  of  arrangement  for  Job  and 
the  Psalms,  they  have  retained  the  prose  form  of  ar- 
rangement even  for  those  of  his  prophecies  which  as 
poetry  stand  unsurpassed  in  the  literature  of  the  He- 
brews. 

Not  less  eminent  was  Isaiah  ben-Amoz  as  a  theolo- 
gian. But  the  very  symmetry  of  his  powers  embar- 
rasses one  in  the  attempt  to  point  out  his  special  con- 
tribution to  Israel's  growing  knowledge  of  God.  The 
highly  poetical  character  of  his  language,  too,  makes 

1  Is.  5:8. 


THE   PROPHET  OF  HOLINESS       169 

the  student  doubt  at  times  the  propriety  of  drawing 
theological  inferences  from  what  is  evidently  not  the 
product  of  theological  reflection.  But  this  considera- 
tion applies  in  other  cases,  also,  though  to  a  less  degree, 
and  must  be  allowed  to  operate  as  a  caution  rather 
than  as  a  deterrent.  The  fact  remains  that  Isaiah  has 
exerted  a  profound  influence  upon  the  religious  thought 
of  Israel,  and  has  enriched  all  the  liturgies  of  Christen- 
dom with  the  products  of  his  consecrated  genius.  For 
even  the  modern  worshipper,  when  he  desires  to  speak 
of  the  holiness  and  majesty  of  God,  can  find  no  lan- 
guage more  exalted  than  that  which  Isaiah  puts  into 
the  mouth  of  the  adoring  seraphim:  — 

"Holy,  holy,  holy,  is  Jahveh  of  hosts; 
The  whole  earth  is  full  of  his  glory!"  * 

Isaiah's  remarkable  description  of  the  vision  of  his 
call,  and  his  frequent  references  to  the  manner  in  which 
he  believed  Jahveh's  will  to  have  been  communicated 
to  him,  affords  an  appropriate  opportunity  for  a  word 
about  the  Hebrew  conception  of  revelation.  The  reader 
will  do  well  to  disabuse  his  mind  at  once  of  the  notion 
that  it  always  meant  a  definite  thing.  The  word  itself 
is  an  abstraction  of  occidental  origin,  with  a  variety 
of  theological  connotations  that  probably  never  en- 
tered the  mind  of  an  Old  Testament  writer.  The  effort 
to  comprehend  the  extremely  varied  contents  of  the 
Hebrew  Scriptures  under  an  exclusive  theological  de- 
finition of  revelation  has  proved,  and  will  continue  to 

«  Is.  6:3. 


170  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

prove,  futile  for  the  simple  reason  that  life  cannot  be 
fixed  in  a  formula. 

The  Old  Testament  recognizes  three  sources  of  di- 
vine guidance:  the  "word"  of  the  prophet,  the  "coun- 
sel" of  the  sage,  and  the  "law,"  or  "instruction"  of 
the  priest.1  The  first  dealt  primarily  with  matters  of 
social  ethics;  the  second  with  prudential  precepts  for 
the  practical  guidance  of  everyday  life;  and  the  third 
with  ceremonial  and  ritual  regulations.  The  prophecies 
of  Amos,  the  Book  of  Proverbs,  and  the  Book  of  Leviti- 
cus are  typical  illustrations  respectively  of  the  literary 
products  of  these  three  classes  of  persons.  Of  these  the 
first  only  is  pertinent  to  our  present  inquiry  into  the 
Hebrew  idea  of  revelation. 

It  is  interesting  to  observe  that  in  the  course  of  cen- 
turies not  only  the  content  of  prophetic  preaching 
changed,  but  that  the  prophets  gradually  modified 
their  view  of  the  manner  in  which  God  was  thought  to 
reveal  his  will  to  them.  Our  earliest  information  about 
the  order  of  the  prophets  shows  that  they  lived  in  re- 
ligious communities  or  societies,  the  members  of  which 
were  known  collectively  as  "B'ne  hannebi'im"  i.e., 
"sons  of  the  prophets,"  in  the  sense  of  members  of  a 
prophetic  guild.  This  peculiarity  they  are  believed  to 
have  had  in  common  with  similar  religious  societies 
among  neighboring  nations,  for  instance  among  the 
Phoenicians.  Besides,  in  primitive  times  both  Hebrews 
and  Phoenicians  believed  a  dervishlike  frenzy  to  be 

1  Cf.  Jer.  18:18. 


THE   PROPHET  OF   HOLINESS       171 

the  mark  of  divine  inspiration,  or  rather,  possession, 
inasmuch  as  they  spoke  of  it  as  a  "seizure."  Occa- 
sionally an  artificial  stimulus  was  employed  in  order 
to  induce  this  psychic  condition.  Elisha,  for  instance, 
employed  a  musician  on  a  certain  occasion.  "And  it 
came  to  pass  when  the  minstrel  played,  that  the  hand 
of  Jahveh  came  upon  him."  1 

This  naive  possession-theory  of  prophecy  for  a  long 
time  constituted  the  answer  of  popular  philosophy  to 
the  question  "How  does  Jahveh  communicate  his  will 
through  the  prophet?"  At  a  time  when  these  psychic 
states  of  religious  frenzy  were  generally  regarded  as 
evidence  of  spirit-seizure,  and  when  no  other  answer  to 
this  question  was  either  known  or  conceivable,  primi- 
tive prophetism  naturally  yielded  in  act  and  thought 
to  this  theory.  Probably  because  almost  any  one  could 
by  auto-suggestion,  or  by  external  stimulus,  produce 
within  himself  the  desired  psychic  state,  and  because 
the  frenzied  dervish  prophetism  of  Saul's  time  could  no 
longer  satisfy  an  age  of  higher  culture,  the  authenticity 
of  these  ecstatic  states  as  evidence  of  divine  inspiration 
came  to  be  doubted.  Dreams  and  visions,  recognized 
as  means  of  divine  communication  from  time  imme- 
morial, gradually  began  to  supersede  ecstasy  in  the 
economy  of  prophetism. 

But  experience  shows  that  primitive  religious  beliefs 
are  practically  indestructible  so  long  as  the  race  sur- 
vives.   It  is  not  surprising,  therefore,  that  occasional 

1  II  Kings  3:15. 


172  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

instances  of  ecstasy-prophetism  are  met  with  among 
literary  prophets  even  after  the  collapse  of  Hebrew 
nationality.  But  from  the  time  of  Isaiah  onward  there 
is  increasing  evidence  of  a  more  rational  interpretation 
of  the  means  by  which  the  Divine  Will  was  believed  to 
be  communicated.  Among  them  are  to  be  reckoned 
the  teaching  of  personal  experience,  flashes  of  insight 
prepared  for  by  communion  with  God  and  long  medita- 
tion upon  the  ethical  relation  of  Jahveh  to  Israel ;  and 
last,  but  not  least,  the  lessons  of  history  —  the  first 
half-unconscious  identification  of  Jahveh's  word  with 
the  deductions  of  the  prophet's  reflective  thinking. 

Finally  reason  and  reflection  began  to  assume  a  large 
place  in  prophetism,  although  it  continued  to  appear 
in  the  rhetorical  and  figurative  dress  peculiar  to  an 
earlier  period  of  prophecy.  This  entire  course  of  de- 
velopment illustrates  the  gradual  elimination  of  super- 
stition and  unreason  from  religion.  One  remarkable 
fact  about  this  rationalizing  process  in  Old  Testament 
prophecy  is  the  gradual  abandonment  of  a  sharp  dis- 
tinction between  the  human  agent  and  the  divine 
spirit  thought  of  as  localized. 

A  moment's  reflection  will  show  that  the  possession 
theory  of  prophetism  is  so  primitive  that  it  lies  alto- 
gether outside  of  modern  categories  of  thinking.  It 
tacitly  implies  that  God  is  within  the  world  and  a  part 
of  it,  being  limited  by  time,  by  space,  and  by  matter. 
Neither  our  philosophical  idea  of  transcendence,  nor 
that  of  immanence,  has  any  real  point  of  contact  with 


THE   PROPHET  OF  HOLINESS       173 

this  conception  of  God,  which  is  essentially  animistic 
and  intramundane.  Of  God  so  conceived  it  is  impos- 
sible to  say  that  he  is  absolute,  omnipotent,  or  omni- 
scient. This  difficulty  began  to  be  felt  by  the  later 
prophets,  and  it  led  to  the  gradual  abandonment  of  the 
possession  theory  and  ecstatic  prophetism.  Neverthe- 
less they  continued  to  believe  that  abnormal  states  of 
consciousness,  happening  irregularly  and  according  to 
no  perceptible  law,  were  evidences  of  the  divine  afflatus. 
The  New  Testament  idea  that  the  human  and  the  di- 
vine may  be  indistinguishably  and  inseparably  united 
is  a  product  of  later  thought  and  deeper  experience; 
a  conviction  which  it  is  safe  to  say  never  dawned  on 
the  mind  of  any  Hebrew  prophet,  even  the  latest. 

Isaiah,  like  his  predecessors,  must  still  be  reckoned 
among  those  who  prophesied  in  a  state  of  ecstasy.  He 
refers  to  the  hand  that  overpowered  him  at  the  mo- 
ment when  Jahveh's  message  came  to  him.1  But  a 
state  of  ecstasy  in  which  a  man  could  produce  pro- 
phetic poems  of  such  high  literary  merit  as  are  most 
of  Isaiah's,  could  have  had  little  in  common  with  the 
dervish-frenzy  of  earlier  days.  This  remains  true  even 
though  we  suppose  that  the  literary  finish  of  his  poems 
was  due  to  elaboration  at  the  time  they  were  written 
down. 

The  remarkable  sixth  chapter  of  his  book,  in  which 
he  describes  the  vision  of  his  call,  exhibits  some  sug- 
gestive phenomena.    He  allowed  several  years  to  pass 

1  Is.  8 :  1 1 .   Cf .  Ezek.  3 :  22  ;  8:1. 


174  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

before  he  wrote  down  an  account  of  the  experience  that 
constituted  his  call,  for  the  opening  words  imply  that 
another  king  is  upon  the  throne,  and  that  the  record 
is  a  reminiscence.  The  result  of  reflection  upon  these 
years  of  unsuccessful  preaching  is  woven  into  this 
reminiscence.  It  appears  in  the  conviction  that  his 
warnings  and  appeals  are  destined  to  fall  upon  un- 
heeding ears.  The  case  is  analogous  to  that  of  Hosea 
who,  after  his  wife  had  proved  unfaithful,  saw  in  the 
experience  that  led  to  his  choice  of  her  the  will  of  God. 
Brooding  over  his  domestic  sorrow  and  interpreting 
it  in  the  light  of  later  events  as  God's  arriere  pensee  he 
wrote:  "  Jahveh  said,  Take  unto  thee  an  impure  wife." 
So  Isaiah  hears  through  his  experience  the  same  voice, 
saying:  "Go,  and  say  to  this  people:  Hear  on,  but  un- 
derstand not!  See  on,  but  perceive  not!  Make  fat  this 
people's  heart,  make  dull  their  ears,  and  besmear  their 
eyes,  lest  they  see  with  their  eyes,  and  hear  with  their 
ears,  and  their  heart  understand,  and  their  health  be 
restored."  * 

From  this  naive  theory  of  determinism,  so  fre- 
quently found  in  the  Old  Testament,  a  deeper  religious 
philosophy  requires  us  to  dissent.  We  shall  feel  less 
reluctance  in  doing  so  when  we  see  that  this  was  an 
element  in  Isaiah's  conception  of  God's  rule  that  was 
borrowed  from  the  thought  of  his  time.  It  was  a  wide- 
spread belief  of  antiquity  that  God  first  renders  him 

1  Is.  6:9,  10.  The  text  quotations  of  Isaiah  are  mostly  from  the  ex- 
cellent translation  of  T.K.  Cheyne,  SBOT. 


THE   PROPHET  OF  HOLINESS       175 

mad  whom  he  would  destroy.1  Ethical  individualism 
had  not  yet  arisen,  and  our  modern  concern  about 
the  dependence  of  individual  responsibility  upon  free 
will  was  equally  unknown.  The  prophet  speaks  in 
communal  terms  throughout.  The  explanation  that 
Isaiah  intended  to  express  the  New  Testament  idea 
that  men,  after  listening  to  his  message,  were  rendered 
worse  by  sinning  against  the  light,  is  a  piece  of  modern 
individualistic  theologizing  of  which  he  was  almost 
certainly  innocent. 

But  the  point  of  chief  interest  in  this  connection  is 
the  fact  that  reflective  reasoning  begins  to  have  a  larger 
place  among  the  means  by  which  God's  will  was  be- 
lieved to  be  communicated  to  the  prophets.  In  short, 
there  is  found,  even  during  this  period  of  objectivity  in 
religion,  a  half-unconscious  recognition  of  the  fact  that 
revelation  comes  not  as  a  voice  out  of  the  flame  or  the 
cloud,  but  wells  up  out  of  the  consciousness  of  the 
prophet,  comes  through  the  normal  processes  of  men's 
minds.  As  Isaiah  once  expresses  it,  "Jahveh  of  hosts 
hath  revealed  himself  in  mine  ears."  2 

The  task  to  which  Isaiah,  in  the  main,  devoted  his 
life  was  to  lift  the  nation's  conduct  out  of  a  religion  of 
ceremonial  into  a  religion  of  character.  Intuitively  he 
selected  the  most  strategic  approach  to  his  problem. 
He  endeavored  to  make  his  conception  of  Jahveh's 
holiness  the  regulative  ideal  of  conduct.    Holiness  is 

1  Cf.  I  Kings  22:20 ff.;  Ex.  7:3  (P).   These  passages  move  within 
the  same  circle  of  ideas. 

2  Is.  22: 14. 


176  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

to  him  the  most  outstanding  characteristic  of  God. 
Mystical  divine  beings  —  seraphim  —  nowhere  else 
mentioned  in  the  Old  Testament,  guard  his  presence 
and  proclaim  him  trebly  holy.  Equally  significant  is 
the  fact  that  Isaiah  coins  for  Jahveh  a  new  title,  the 
Holy  One  of  Israel. 

But  if  the  idea  of  holiness  is  to  be  regulative  in  the 
sphere  of  ethical  conduct  it  must  possess  ethical  signifi- 
cance and  the  worshipper  must  have  some  notion  of 
what  it  is.  Certain  it  is  that  originally  holiness  did 
not  signify  the  possession  of  any  moral  quality.  Even 
the  Phoenicians  described  their  gods  as  holy,  and  in 
Isaiah's  time  there  were  found  at  Hebrew  sanctuaries 
the  utterly  degraded  wretches  known  as  the  "holy 
ones."  Smend  has  furnished  a  definition  which  best 
comprehends  the  extremely  varied  uses  of  the  word. 
" Kodesh,"  he  says,  "originally  meant  about  as  much 
as  divine  potency."  Persons  or  things  connected  in  any 
way  with  the  deity,  or  the  sanctuary  where  the  numen 
was  supposed  to  dwell,  became  "holy."  In  popular 
belief  they  became  charged  with  a  mysterious  power 
peculiar  to  the  deity,  transmissible  like  electricity  or 
contagion,  and  dangerous  to  any  one  who  was  not  in  a 
state  of  ritual  fitness. 

In  this  use  of  it  the  term  "holy"  has  evidently  its 
original  ritual  significance  only  and  is  the  exact  equiva- 
lent of  the  Latin  sacer,  the  Greek  hagios,  and  the  Poly- 
nesian taboo.  As  such  it  describes  not  a  particular 
phenomenon  of  Hebrew  religion,  but  one  that  belongs 


THE   PROPHET  OF  HOLINESS       177 

to  religion  in  general.  The  fundamental  idea,  as  in  all 
systems  of  taboos,  is  that  of  separation  for  special  re- 
ligious use  or  behavior.  Perhaps  the  most  instructive 
single  chapter  in  the  Old  Testament  to  illustrate  this 
point  is  the  one  on  the  Nazirite  and  his  head  of  holy 
hair.1  It  is  the  more  instructive  because  it  exhibits  the 
very  element  in  the  idea  of  holiness  from  which  the 
prophets  were  breaking  away.  In  comparatively  late 
times,  under  priestly  influences  as  the  book  of  Leviticus 
shows,  it  suffered  deterioration  again  in  the  direction 
of  this  earlier  meaning.  The  priestly  injunction,  as- 
cribed to  Jahveh,  "  be  ye  holy  for  I  am  holy"  means  no 
more  than  "keep  yourselves  in  that  state  of  ritual 
taboo  which  is  acceptable  to  me."  2 

The  primary  rule  of  action,  therefore,  which  the 
primitive  thought  of  holiness  suggested  was  the  nega- 
tive one,  "Do  not  touch."  3  In  consequence  the  word 
has  never  lost  the  idea  of  inapproachableness  and  in- 
violability as  an  element  of  its  meaning.  This  notion 
is  by  no  means  absent  in  Isaiah's  characterization  of 
Jahveh's  holiness,  and  explains  why  he  naturally  used 
it  as  a  companion  attribute  for  Jahveh's  majesty.  But 
Amos,  as  we  have  seen,  had  shifted  the  centre  of  gravity 
in  Israel's  religion  from  the  ceremonial  to  the  moral. 
In  declaring  Jahveh  an  ethical  personality  this  cere- 

1  Num.  6: 1-2 1 ;  cf.  Judg.  16: 17.  2  Lev.  11:  44. 

8  Cf.  Num.  4: 15, 20;  Ex.  19:12,  13;  Ex.  29:37;  Num.  16:36-40;  Ezek. 
44:19;  II  Sam.  6:6-7;  I  Sam.  6:20.  Whether  objects  or  their  super- 
natural owners  were  first  declared  "  holy  "  is  still  a  matter  of  debate;  the 
attribute  probably  was  first  applied  to  things  and  then  transferred  to  the 
deity. 


178  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT 

monial  attribute  of  the  Godhead  necessarily  had  to 
acquire  ethical  significance  also.  It  must  be  accounted 
Isaiah's  most  distinguished  service  to  the  religion  of 
Israel  that  he  gave  to  Jahveh's  holiness  a  fulness  of 
ethical  meaning  which  made  it  possible  to  say :  "The 
holy  God  shows  himself  holy  through  righteousness."  1 
In  order  that  we  may  not  overlook  important  land- 
marks of  prophetic  doctrine  let  it  be  observed,  in  pass- 
ing, that  the  pre-exilic  and  post-exilic  prophets  drew 
practically  opposite  inferences  from  the  premise  im- 
plied in  the  above  quotation.  While  the  former  looked 
for  the  manifestation  of  Jahveh's  holiness  in  a  judg- 
ment of  destruction  upon  Israel  at  the  hands  of  the 
heathen,  the  latter  looked  for  it  in  the  destruction  of 
the  heathen  and  the  restoration  of  Israel.2  Isaiah's 
doctrine  of  the  remnant,3  and  his  promise  of  a  time 
when  the  Assyrian  rod  of  Jahveh's  punitive  anger  will 
itself  be  broken,4  were  no  doubt  influential  factors  in 
the  development  of  the  later  expectations.  But  if 
Isaiah  could  have  witnessed  the  search  of  some  of  these 
epigones  for  holiness  through  ritual  etiquette,  he  would 
doubtless  have  poured  out  the  vials  of  his  indignation 
upon  their  self-righteous  pretence.) 

1  Is.  5:16.  This  verse  doubtless  is  part  of  an  insertion  by  a  later  hand, 
but  it  expresses  Isaiah's  implicit  thought  precisely.  Unfortunately  both 
the  A.  V.  and  the  R.  V.  miss  the  force  of  the  passage  altogether  by  mak- 
ing God  "sanctify"  himself,  whatever  that  may  mean. 

2  Ezek.  20:41/;  28: 25;  38: 16,  23.  "Iwillbe  sanctified  in  you  in  the 
sight  of  the  nations"  will  be  more  intelligible  if  we  render  "I  will  show 
myself  holy  [by  proving  my  power]  on  your  behalf  before  the  eyes  of  all 
nations." 

3  Is.  7:3;  cf.  8:18.  *  Is.  10:5;  cf.  14:24,  25. 


\ 


THE   PROPHET  OF   HOLINESS       179 

Holiness  through  righteousness,  —  that  was  the 
countersign  of  Isaiah's  religion.  It  was  not  the  holi- 
ness of  the  auditors  to  whom  he  was  preaching.  They, 
like  the  revellers  castigated  by  Amos  in  the  north, 
thought  they  were  worshipping  a  God  to  whom  moral 
conduct  was  a  matter  of  relative  unimportance ;  whose 
first  interest  was  to  observe  the  quality  and  number  of 
sacrifices  offered  to  him,  and  who  was  ever  ready  to 
resent  an  infringement  of  the  etiquette  of  approach 
which  he  had  instituted.  When  people  with  this  con- 
ception of  God  were  visited  by  misfortune,  or  by  a 
national  calamity,  it  was  a  sign  to  them  that  he 
was  offended,  either  by  inadequate  sacrifices,  or  by 
an  intentional  or  unintentional  infringement  of  cere- 
monial law.  The  only  remedy  which  suggested  itself 
to  them  was  more  sacrifices  and  a  more  rigid  adminis- 
tration of  the  cultus.  Thoughts  of  reform  did  not  go 
beyond  the  externalities  of  religion  because  the  idea 
of  Jahveh's  holiness,  which  they  were  anxious  enough 
to  respect,  had  little  or  no  ethical  content. 

That  the  holiness  which  Isaiah  ascribes  to  Jahveh 
does  not  refer  merely  to  his  inapproachableness,  exalta- 
tion, and  supremacy  may  be  shown  by  reference  to 
many  passages.  It  is  this  attribute  of  God  which  he 
considers  outraged  by  the  social  and  judicial  corrup- 
tion of  his  time.  In  the  presence  of  the  Holy  One  of 
Israel  he  feels  that  he,  as  Jahveh's  spokesman,  is  him- 
self "a  man  of  unclean  lips,"  and  he  "dwells  in  the 
midst  of  a  people  of  unclean  lips."    Despite  the  sym- 


1 80  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

bolical  cleansing  performed  by  one  of  the  seraphim  the 
figure  of  speech  describes  not  ceremonial  but  moral 
unfitness,  for  on  a  subsequent  occasion  it  is  "this  peo- 
ple" of  whom  he  hears  Jahveh  say,  they  "draw  near 
me  with  their  mouth  and  with  their  lips  honour  me,  but 
their  heart  they  keep  far  from  me,  and  their  fear  [i.e., 
worship]  is  but  a  precept  of  men  learned  by  rote."1 
They  are  unwilling  to  respect  or  appreciate  the  pro- 
phetic issue  between  cultus  and  character,  between  the 
appearance  and  the  reality  of  religion.  They  deride 
"the  purpose  of  Israel's  Holy  One"  as  expounded  by 
Isaiah  on  the  basis  of  these  eternal  distinctions.  Its 
inevitable  fulfilment,  he  declares,  means 

"Woe  unto  those  who  call  evil  good,  and  good  evil, 
Who  put  darkness  for  light,  and  light  for  darkness, 
Who  put  bitter  for  sweet,  and  sweet  for  bitter."  2 

We  have  already  alluded  to  the  fact  that  Isaiah's 
companion  attribute  for  the  divine  holiness,  and 
one  which  he  makes  almost  equally  prominent,  is 
the  glory  (kabhod)  of  Jahveh.  The  term  is  practically 
equivalent  to  our  word  majesty  and  was  used  in  this 
sense  to  describe  the  pomp  and  power  of  kings.  In  the 
earlier  records  of  Israel's  religion  it  had  no  perceptible 
ethical  significance  even  when  predicated  of  God. 
Moved  by  fear  of  deadly  consequences  the  Jahvist  lets 
Moses  see  only  the  rear  of  Jahveh's  "glory,"  which  is 
physical  in  its  manifestations;  so  physical,  indeed, 
that  a  post-exilic  priestly  elaborator  of  Mosaic  tradi- 
1  Is.  29:13.  2  Is.  5:18/. 


THE   PROPHET  OF   HOLINESS       181 

tions  even  makes  the  light  of  Jahveh's  kabhod  com- 
municate itself  to  Moses'  face.1  Similarly  the  volcanic 
theophanies  of  the  exodus  and  all  the  more  violent 
disturbances  of  nature  were  interpreted  as  exhibitions 
of  Jahveh's  glory. 

Isaiah's  conception  of  Jahveh's  kabhod,  also,  dis- 
closes unmistakable  evidence  of  origin  amid  the  cata- 
clysms of  nature.  Earthquake  and  tornado  are  blended 
in  his  picture  of  "the  day  of  Jahveh,"  which  is  to  be 
signalized  not  only  by  the  abasement  of  human  pride, 
but  by  the  destruction  of  everything  that  might  minis- 
ter to  the  same.  The  cedars  of  Lebanon  and  the  oaks 
of  Bashan;  mountains,  towers,  battlements,  and  ships, 
are  destined  to  go  down  before  "the  terror  of  Jahveh 
and  the  splendour  of  his  majesty  when  he  arises  to 
strike  awe  throughout  the  earth."  2 

When  Isaiah  declares  that  the  whole  earth  is  full 
of  Jahveh's  glory,  he  evidently  meant  both  more  and 
less  than  most  commentators  have  ascribed  to  him. 
Though  a  resident  of  the  Hebrew  metropolis,  he  shared 
with  Amos,  the  herdsman,  some  ancient  prophetic 
anti-cultural  prejudices.  A  judgment  of  destruction 
upon  that  which  is  lofty  and  impressive  in  nature  and 

1  Ex.  34:29-35.  By  "my  goodness,"  which  Jahveh  declares  (33:  19, 
JE)  he  will  cause  to  pass  before  Moses,  is  not  meant  moral  goodness  as 
a  study  of  the  use  of  tubh  shows.  It  has  the  concrete  meaning  of  "good 
tilings,"  and  is  here  used  in  the  sense  of  physical  splendor  or  beauty. 
Hesed  would  have  been  the  word  to  use  for  moral  goodness.   Cf .  Hosea. 

2  Is.  2:  10-19.  This  probably  is  Isaiah's  earliest  extant  prophecy.  The 
phrase  "splendour  of  his  majesty"  must  betaken  here  as  synonymous 
with  "glory."  The  "terror  of  Jahveh"  corresponds  to  the  German  Cot- 
tesschreckefi,  the  Panic-fear  of  the  Greeks. 


1 82  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

art,  in  order  that  "Jahveh  alone  may  be  exalted,"  is 
neither  ethical  nor  a  tribute  to  divine  power  and 
greatness. 

It  is  a  significant  and  remarkable  fact,  however, 
that  Isaiah  ethicizes  and  spiritualizes  the  conception 
of  Jahveh's  glory  in  relation  to  man.  "Jerusalem 
comes  to  ruin,  and  Judah  falls,"  he  writes,  "because 
their  tongue  and  their  deeds  are  against  Jahveh  to 
defy  the  eyes  of  his  glory.  .  .  .  The  spoil  of  the  desti- 
tute is  in  your  houses.  What  mean  ye  by  crushing 
my  people,  and  by  grinding  the  face  of  the  desti- 
tute?" 1 

Had  Isaiah  done  no  more  than  to  invest  the  two  di- 
vine attributes  of  holiness  and  glory  with  these  new 
and  deeper  ethical  meanings,  he  would  have  made  an 
invaluable  contribution  to  Hebrew  moral  development. 
But  he  more  than  trebled  the  force  of  their  appeal  to 
the  emotions  by  the  striking  literary  felicity  of  his  state- 
ments, and  by  the  air  of  sublime  dignity  and  mystery 
with  which  he  surrounds  the  transcendent  personality 
of  the  Holy  One.  The  average  Jerusalemite  thought  of 
Jahveh  as  inhabiting  the  innermost  recess  of  Solomon's 
temple;  but  of  the  gigantic  royal  figure  of  Isaiah's 
vision  it  is  said,  "The  train  of  his  [robe]  filled  the 
temple."  In  the  popular  apprehension  Jahveh's  glory 
was  so  linked  with  the  temple  that  even  a  later  Psalm- 
ist2  still  confesses,  "I  looked  upon  thee  in  the  sanc- 
tuary, to  see  thy  power  and  thy  glory";  but  the  cor- 

1  Is.  3:8-15.  2  Ps.  63:2. 


THE   PROPHET  OF   HOLINESS       183 

responding  sanctuary  of  Isaiah's  vision  is  the  whole 
earth,  and  it  is  full  of  Jahveh's  glory. 

Thus  Isaiah  recreated  the  very  forms  of  Hebrew 
thought  about  God,  replacing  petty  survivals  from 
more  primitive  times  with  symbols  of  almost  cosmic 
grandeur.  If  in  his  earliest  prophecies  there  is  occa- 
sionally in  Jahveh's  actions  a  suggestion  of  irritabil- 
ity, it  is  offset  in  the  prophet's  later  years  by  the  invest- 
ment of  the  Holy  One  with  that  beautiful  serenity 
which  is  the  reflection  into  the  heavens  of  Isaiah's 
own  quiet  faith  in  God.  During  the  stormy  days  of 
Egyptian  intrigue  and  Assyrian  aggression,  when  every 
hour  seemed  to  bring  forth  new  agitation  and  alarm, 
Isaiah  wrote  "  Jahveh  hath  said  unto  me,  I  will  be  still, 
and  will  look  on  in  my  place,  like  the  flickering  ether 
in  sunlight,  like  dew-clouds  in  the  heat  of  harvest."  ! 
What  apter  symbols  of  divine  tranquillity  could  there 
be  than  sunlit  summer  spaces  and  the  seemingly  sta- 
tionary, high  cirrus  clouds  from  which  the  dew  was 
believed  to  fall. 

It  seems  natural  that  the  creator  of  this  reposeful 
conception  of  God  should  have  been  the  first  to  set 
forth  quiet  trust  in  God  as  a  religious  requirement. 
It  is  the  nearest  approach  in  the  Old  Testament  to  the 
Christian  idea  of  faith.  "Be  wary,  and  keep  thyself 
calm,"  said  Isaiah  to  panic-stricken  King  Ahaz  during 
the  Syro-Ephraimitic  invasion.  '  If  ye  will  not  believe, 
surely  ye  shall  not  be  established."  2    And  the  same 

1   Is.  18:4.  2  Is.  7:4,  9.    The  latter  statement  contains  a  word- 

play which  might  be  rendered,  "  No  confiding,  no  abiding." 


1 84  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

Jahveh  whom  he  pictured  serene  as  a  summer  day 
above  the  intrigues  and  commotions  of  the  little  king- 
dom bids  him  say,  near  the  end  of  his  career,  "By 
turning  and  remaining  quiet  ye  would  have  been  de- 
livered ;  in  quietness  and  [pious]  trust  ye  would  have 
found  your  [true]  strength.    But  ye  refused."  1 

Finally,  Isaiah  is  an  unsparing  opponent  of  that 
mechanical,  sacerdotal  conception  of  religion  which 
makes  it  consist  in  sacrifices.  With  a  directness  and 
sureness  unattained  by  any  of  his  predecessors  Isa- 
iah asserts  the  ethical  character  of  Jahveh  by  point- 
ing out  that  he  requires  of  his  worshippers  conformity 
with  a  moral  standard,  and  not  observance  of  feast 
days  and  ritual.  Unaccustomed  to  such  demands  as 
Isaiah  is  making  upon  their  conduct  in  the  name  of 
religion,  the  people  treat  him  with  indifference,  and 
even  scorn.    He  calls  them 

.  .  .  "rebellious  people,  lying  sons, 
Sons  who  will  not  hear  the  direction  of  Jahveh; 
Who  say  to  the  seers:  See  not!  and  to  the  prophets: 

prophesy  not  to  us  true  things ! 
Speak  to  us  smooth  things,  prophesy  delusions! 
Turn  from  the  way,  go  aside  from  the  path ; 
Trouble  us  no  more  with  Israel's  Holy  One."  2 

But  Isaiah  does  not  compromise  with  duty,  nor 
abate  one  jot  of  his  conviction  about  the  truth.  Others 
may  lull  their  fears  with  patriotic  phrases  about  Jah- 
veh's  help,  or  dazzle  their  eyes  with  false  visions  of  se- 
curity. But  he  abides  by  his  conviction  that  true 
1  Is.  30:15.  2  Is.  30:9/. 


THE   PROPHET  OF   HOLINESS       185 

religion  must  concern  itself  with  the  right  and  wrong 
in  human  conduct,  and  that  Jahveh's  judgments  hinge 
upon  the  criterion  afforded  by  their  lives. 

In  the  first  chapter,  known  sometimes  as  "The 
Great  Arraignment,"  he  asserts  in  passionate  language 
the  inherent  falseness  of  the  popular  conception  of 
God,  and  of  the  character  of  his  demands.  Sacrifices, 
the  blood  of  beasts,  temple-treading,  new  moons, 
sabbaths  (full  moons?),  assemblies  —  such  religion  is 
worse  than  worthless.  Then,  in  language  that  glows 
with  moral  fervor,  he  reaches  the  climax  of  his  oration 
in  a  simple  statement  of  his  own  conception  of  religion 
in  terms  of  moral  conduct :  — 

"Your  hands  are  stained  with  blood  [of  sacrifices]. 

Wash  you,  make  you  clean,  let  me  see  the  evil  of 
your  doings  no  more. 

Seek  out  justice,  chastise  the  violent, 

Right  the  orphan,  plead  for  the  widow."  1 

So  far  as  we  can  tell,  the  last  spoken  words  of  Isaiah 
that  have  come  down  to  us  were  addressed  to  the 
joyous  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem,  as  they  crowded  the 
walls  of  the  city  to  watch  the  doughty  warriors  of  Sen- 
nacherib's army  disappearing  among  the  hills.  It  was 
a  mournful  spectacle  to  him,  because  they  had  not 
been  turned  back  with  the  sword,  but  with  silver  and 
gold.  "Thy  slain  are  not  slain  with  the  sword,  nor 
fallen  in  battle,"2  said  the  prophet.    Such  dead  might 

1  Is.  1 :  15/.  The  blood  which  stains  their  hands  must  mean  the  blood 
of  sacrifices.  Murderers,  as  also  Duhm  remarks,  would  not  have  been 
invited  to  begin  the  work  of  social  reform.  The  very  blood  which  they 
think  will  make  "atonement"  for  them  is  the  symbol  of  their  irrcligion. 

2  Is.  22:2. 


1 86  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT 

still  be  undefeated.  But  his  living  contemporaries 
never  even  tried  to  stand  their  ground  in  battle  for 
prizes  which  are  above  comfort  and  above  life. 

Once  more  there  arises  before  his  vision  the  day  in 
which  the  Lord  "did  call  to  weeping,  and  to  mourning, 
.  .  .  but,  behold,  joy  and  gladness,  slaying  oxen  and 
killing  sheep,  eating  flesh  and  drinking  wine :  [for  they 
said]  Let  us  eat  and  drink,  for  to-morrow  we  shall  die. 
And  Jahveh  of  Hosts  hath  revealed  himself  in  mine 
ears,  Surely  this  iniquity  shall  not  be  forgiven  you  till 
ye  die,  saith  the  Lord,  Jahveh  of  Hosts."  1  They  chose 
the  sacrificial  feasts,  a  mechanical  religion  of  cere- 
monial, and  in  this  choice  of  ceremonial  above  char- 
acter, the  prophet  read  their  doom. 

It  cannot  be  said  that  Isaiah  added  anything  essen- 
tially new  to  the  message  of  his  predecessors.  But  his 
political  sagacity,  his  oratorical  power,  the  splendor 
of  his  diction,  and  above  all  the  exquisite  literary 
quality  of  many  of  his  prophetical  poems,  give  not 
only  greater  force  and  amplitude  to  his  message :  they 
place  him  in  a  class  by  himself.  He  trebled  his  power 
by  the  law  that 

"A  thought's  his  who  kindles  new  youth  in  it, 
Or  so  puts  it  as  makes  it  more  true." 

1  Is.  22: 12-14. 


CHAPTER  VII 

THE  MONOJAHVISM  OF  DEUTERONOMY 

For  reasons  set  forth  in  previous  chapters  we  are 
unable  to  agree  with  those  who  find  a  clear  recognition 
of  monotheism  in  the  pre-Deuteronomic  prophets.  It 
becomes  necessary  at  this  point  to  face  the  question 
whether  even  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy  itself  teaches 
monotheism.  The  well-known  passage  of  chapter  six, 
"Hear  O  Israel,  Jahveh  our  God  is  one  Jahveh"  has 
long  been  regarded  as  the  leading  proof-text  of  Mo- 
saic monotheism.  General  abandonment  of  the  Mosaic 
authorship  of  Deuteronomy,  and  its  recognition  as  a 
priestly-prophetical  compromise  of  the  seventh  cen- 
tury B.C.  have  shifted  the  question  to  a  later  period. 
But  one  who  desires  to  trace  the  development  of  the 
idea  of  God  in  Israel  must  nevertheless  address  him- 
self to  the  task  of  determining  whether  the  above- 
mentioned  passage  teaches  monotheism.  Since  Deut- 
eronomy is  not  a  unity,  such  an  enquiry  involves  the 
consideration  of  possible  differences  between  earlier 
and  later  parts  of  the  book.  Elsewhere  we  have  sought 
to  show  that  the  crucial  passage  of  the  sixth  chapter 
teaches  not  monotheism,  but  a  transitional  form  of 
the  Hebraic  idea  of  God  for  which  we  have  coined 
the  irregular,  but  necessary,  word  "monojahvism."  ! 

1  Cf.  Bade,  Der  Monojahwismus  des  D cuter onomiums,  ZAW,  n  (1910). 


188  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

This  Deuteronomic  stage  of  development  is  so  clearly 
the  product  of  specific  historical  conditions  that  it 
seems  expedient  to  pass  them  briefly  in  review. 

Recent  years  have  shed  much  archaeological  light 
upon  the  extraordinary  mixture  of  Baal  cult  and  Jah- 
veh  worship  found  in  the  earlier  literature  of  the  Old 
Testament.  Our  chief  sources  of  information  are  the 
excavations  of  Macalister,  Sellin,  and  Schumacher. 
The  Amarna  tablets,  also,  furnish  the  historical  back- 
ground for  a  considerable  period  in  the  fourteenth 
century  B.C. 

While  the  evidence  is  not  decisive  there  is  good  reason 
to  believe  that  Jahveh  was  worshipped  among  the 
Canaanites  as  a  local  divinity  in  pre-Israelitic  times.1 
In  that  case  he  must  have  figured  as  a  local  Baal  long 
before  the  Hebrew  prophets  began  their  crusade  of 
reform.  It  is  not  easy  to  determine  when  the  Baal 
cult  of  ancient  Palestine  originated.  But  it  seems  cer- 
tain that  it  was  well  established  there  before  the  end 
of  the  second  millennium  B.C. 

The  Deuteronomic  editors  of  the  Book  of  Judges, 
rewriting  the  history  of  ancient  Israel  according  to  the 
pragmatic  standard  of  the  twenty-eighth  chapter  of 
Deuteronomy,  explain  its  varying  political  fortunes 
by  assuming  a  see-saw  of  national  apostasies  and  re- 
pentances. The  service  of  Baal  brings  oppression,  and 

1  Cf.  Marti,  Jahwe  und  seine  Auffassung  in  der  altesten  Zeit,  ThSK, 
(1908),  pt.  3. 

Ward,  The  Origin  of  the  Worship  of  Jahveh,  AJSL,  vol.  xxv,  no.  3 
(1909). 


MONOJAHVISM   OF   DEUTERONOMY    189 

return  to  Jahveh,  deliverance.  As  history  this  rep- 
resentation is  not  only  inherently  improbable,  but 
demonstrably  erroneous.  In  the  results  obtained  by 
archaeological  and  historical  research  there  is  nothing 
that  suggests  the  occurrence  of  sweeping  changes  of  re- 
ligion on  Palestinian  soil.  On  the  contrary,  the  evi- 
dence is  in  keeping  with  those  parts  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment which  imply  that  the  native  population,  together 
with  the  characteristics  of  its  culture,  was  gradually 
absorbed  by  the  Israelites.  This  blending  with  cognate 
racial  types,  continuing  through  centuries,  had  an  ef- 
fect upon  religion  and  culture  very  different  from  that 
which  would  have  resulted  from  a  brief  campaign  of 
military  subjugation  and  extermination. 

That  climatic,  social,  and  economic  conditions  always 
are  determining  factors  in  shaping  the  development 
of  a  religion  is  an  accepted  fact  among  students  of  the 
history  of  religion.  It  explains,  incidentally,  why  the 
agricultural  population  of  Canaan  saw  in  its  numerous 
local  deities,  the  so-called  Baals,  patrons  of  agriculture, 
and  why  the  Hebrews,  when  they  became  agricultur- 
ists, invested  their  own  Jahveh  with  this  patronate. 
Hosea,  in  the  second  chapter,  furnishes  an  instructive 
account  of  the  transfer.  Wayward  Israel  is  repre- 
sented as  saying:  "I  will  go  after  my  lovers  [Baals] 
that  give  me  my  bread  and  my  water,  my  wool  and 
my  flax,  mine  oil  and  my  drink."  .  .  .  "She  did  not 
know  that  I  [Jahveh]  gave  her  the  grain,  and  the  new 
wine,  and  the  oil."     Naturally  those  ritual  practices 


190  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

in  which  the  products  of  the  land  played  a  part  de- 
veloped into  more  and  more  prominence,  for  worship- 
pers invariably  attribute  to  their  deities  their  own 
preferences  in  the  matter  of  sacrificial  gifts.  The  prac- 
tice of  offering  the  first  fruits  of  the  field  was  intro- 
duced by  the  agricultural  Canaanite,  not  by  the  no- 
madic Hebrew. 

The  centre  of  Canaanite  culture  is  obviously  to  be 
sought  in  the  fruitful  plains  of  Palestine.  This  explains 
and  confirms  the  tradition  that  the  invading  Israelites, 
being  nomads  and  half-nomads,  first  secured  a  foot- 
hold in  the  Palestinian  hill-country.  In  the  more 
densely  settled  agricultural  districts  the  Canaanites 
were  strong  enough  to  withstand  the  invaders  for  a  long 
period.  What  has  nearly  always  happened  under  simi- 
lar circumstances  took  place  there,  also,  in  the  course 
of  time.  The  superior  culture  of  the  native  population, 
of  whom  it  is  reported  as  early  as  the  reign  of  Thut- 
mose  III,  1500  B.C.,  that  they  had  more  grain  than 
sand  on  the  seashore,  entered  into  the  life  of  the  new- 
comers. 

Every  reader  of  the  Old  Testament  knows  how 
appreciatively  Hebrew  tradition  speaks  of  Canaan's 
fortified  cities  and  the  agricultural  wealth  of  the  land. 
It  is  Israel's  tribute  of  admiration  to  a  culture  more 
complex  and  more  developed  than  its  own.  Seven 
centuries  after  the  exodus  the  Deuteronomist  mounts 
the  pulpit  behind  the  dim  figure  of  Moses  and  utters 
to  his  contemporaries  warnings  against  what  has  al- 


MONOJAHVISM  OF   DEUTERONOMY    191 

ready  taken  place.  "And  when  Jahveh  thy  God  shall 
bring  thee  into  the  land  which  he  sware  unto  thy 
fathers  ...  to  give  thee,  great  and  goodly  cities,  which 
thou  buildedst  not,  and  houses  full  of  all  good  things, 
which  thou  filledst  not,  and  cistern  hewn  out,  which 
thou  hewedst  not,  vineyards  and  olive-trees,  which 
thou  plantedst  not,  and  thou  shalt  eat  and  be  full; 
then  beware  lest  thou  forget  Jahveh.  .  .  .  Thou  shalt 
fear  Jahveh  thy  God;  and  him  thou  shalt  serve,  and 
shalt  swear  by  his  name.  Ye  shall  not  go  after  other 
gods,  of  the  gods  of  the  peoples  that  are  round  about 
you."  » 

This,  as  we  shall  see,  was  an  indirect  indictment  of 
the  prevailing  worship  of  Jahveh-Baal,  long  denounced 
by  the  eighth-century  prophets  as  essentially  Ca- 
naanitish.  The  dangers  against  which  Moses  might 
fitly  have  cautioned  were  realized  in  the  conditions  of 
the  Deuteronomist's  time.  Jahveh  had  been  identi- 
fied with  the  local  Baals ;  their  names,  bull-images,  rites, 
and  sanctuaries  had  been  appropriated  so  completely 
in  the  popular  cult  of  Jahveh  that  the  Deuteronomist 
can  see  in  it  only  a  worship  "of  the  gods  of  the  peoples 
that  are  round  about." 

It  was  a  correct  instinct  that  led  the  Deuteronomist 
to  connect  the  corruption  of  Israel's  religion  with  the 
appropriation  of  Canaan's  material  civilization.  Ca- 
naanite  culture  and  the  local  cults  of  the  Baalim  were 
so  deeply  interfused  that  it  was  practically  impossible 

1  Dt.  6:10-15. 


i92  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

to  adopt  the  one  without  the  other.  Hence  the  passage 
of  the  Israelites  from  nomadism  to  peasant  life  in- 
volved a  corresponding  change  in  their  religion.  The 
possession  of  a  common  tongue,  the  incorporation  of 
entire  Canaanitish  clans  1  into  the  Israelite  common- 
wealth, and  a  fundamental  resemblance  between  the 
two  cults  must  have  greatly  furthered  the  process  of 
fusion. 

Observing  how  the  physical  changes  of  their  life 
seemed  to  entail  religious  changes  which  they  greatly 
dreaded,  the  prophets  of  the  eighth  century  began  to 
denounce  certain  luxuries  and  refinements  of  their 
Israelite  contemporaries  as  sinful.  They  knew  them 
to  be  products  of  that  Canaanite  civilization  which  was 
corrupting  Jahvism.  The  religious  order  of  the  Recha- 
bites  carried  this  reaction  even  to  the  point  of  absten- 
tion from  agriculture,  viticulture,  wine,  and  settled 
abodes.  To  them  pure  Jahvism  and  pure  nomadism 
were  inseparable. 

But  these  protests  were  powerless  to  stop  the  triple 
fusion  of  people,  religion  and  civilization  which  con- 
tinued uninterruptedly  from  the  time  of  the  Judges  to 
that  of  the  Kings.  Israel  conquered,  but  was  Canaan- 
ized;  Jahveh  conquered,  but  was  Baalized. 

The  word  baal  is  not  a  proper  name,  but  a  descrip- 
tive term  2  meaning  lord,  owner,  or  master.  As  such 

1  Cf.  Josh.  9.  The  story  of  the  Gibeonites  seems  to  be  the  attempt 
of  a  later  age  to  account  for  the  long  independence  of  this  clan  and  its  con- 
nection with  the  Solomonic  temple. 

2  The  feminine  form  baalah  means  "mistress";  hence  baal  was  also 


MONOJAHVISM   OF   DEUTERONOMY    193 

it  was,  among  the  Western  Semites,  the  common 
designation  of  any  male  deity.  One  immediately  sus- 
pects, what  indeed  was  true,  that  a  great  variety  of 
local  divinities  masqueraded  under  the  title.  They  were 
distinguished  from  each  other  by  some  attribute,  by 
adding  the  name  of  the  locality,  or  by  using  the  deity's 
proper  name.  The  Baal  of  Tyre  was  the  same  as  the 
god  Melkart;  the  Baal  of  Haran  was  the  moon-god 
Sin.  By  analogy  Jahveh  was  the  Baal  of  Israel,  or  of 
Palestine.  While  in  strictness  the  term  baal  needs  to  be 
completed  with  the  mention  of  the  place  or  people 
whose  "Lord"  the  particular  deity  is,  this  was  not  al- 
ways done.  The  inhabitants  of  a  particular  city  or  dis- 
trict knew  as  a  matter  of  course  the  identity  of  the 
Baal  venerated  at  their  sanctuary.  Hence  he  was  sim- 
ply referred  to  as  "the  Baal,"  i.e.,  the  Lord.  When  the 
fusion  of  Jahvism  and  Baalism  began,   this  neutral 

designation  could  be  treated  like  a  blank  Mr. , 

enabling  the  Hebrew  to  supply  tacitly  or  explicitly  the 
name  of  Jahveh,  and  yet  retain  in  his  worship  the 
entire  ceremonial  apparatus  of  the  average  Canaanite 
sanctuary. 

In  a  number  of  personal  names  the  Old  Testament 
has  preserved  decisive  evidence  of  such  identification 
of  Jahveh  with  "the  Baal."  Ishbaal  ("man  of  Baal"), 
Meribaal    ("hero   of   Baal"),    and   Beeljada    ("Baal 

commonly  used  in  the  sense  of  "husband,"  "master."  "Baal  of  an  ox" 
means  "owner  of  an  ox";  to  be  the  "baal  of  a  woman"  is  "to  be  mar- 
ried."  Ex.  21:3. 


194  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

knows")  1  were  sons  of  Saul,  Jonathan,  and  David  who 
certainly  meant  Jahveh  by  Baal.  After  the  Deutero- 
nomic  reform,  editors,  determined  to  eradicate  all  evi- 
dence of  the  hated  cult,  mutilated  these  names  in  the 
second  book  of  Samuel  by  changing  "Baal"  into 
"bosheth"  (i.e.,  shame),  and  into  "El"  (i.e.,  God). 
But  the  early  Greek  versions  and  the  first  book  of 
Chronicles  have  preserved  them  correctly.  In  the 
same  category  belongs  Baal-jah  2  ("Jah  is  Baal"),  the 
name  of  one  of  David's  heroes,  in  which  the  identifica- 
tion of  Jahveh  with  Baal  is  made  directly.  Finally,  a 
passage  of  Hosea  3  testifies  that  Jahveh  was  called 
"Baali,"  i.e.,  "My  Baal." 

Marti  undoubtedly  is  right  in  regarding  the  appear- 
ance of  bands  of  wandering  prophets  toward  the  end 
of  the  period  of  the  Judges,  as  further  evidence  of  re- 
ligious fusion.  For,  while  at  this  time  they  are  in  the 
service  of  Jahveh,  they  are  to  be  regarded  as  descend- 
ants of  similar  bands  that  formerly  were  attached  to 
the  cult  of  Baal.  This  conclusion  is  forced  upon  us  by 
the  disparaging  tone  in  which  they  are  mentioned,4  by 
the  dervishlike  frenzy  which  they  took  for  divine  in- 
spiration, and  by  the  evident  resemblance  between 
these  bands  and  the  prophets  of  the  Tyrian  Baal  in  the 

1  II  Sam.  2:8/.;  I  Chron.  8:33;  9:39  (=  Ishbosheth).  II  Sam. 
4:4  /.;  cf.  I  Chron.  8:34:9:40  (=  Mephibosheth).  II  Sam.  5:16 
(=Eljada);  I  Chron.  14:7  (=  Beeljada). 

2  R.V.,  Bealiah  ;  I  Chron.  12:5. 

3  Hos.  2: 16.  The  evidence  of  the  passage  on  this  point  is  not  af- 
fected by  questions  of  authorship. 

4  I  Sam.  10:9/. 


MONOJAHVISM   OF   DEUTERONOMY    195 

days  of  Elijah.  Samuel's  connection  with  these  bands 
may  be  taken  as  evidence  of  influences  by  which  their 
wild  fanaticism  was  gradually  purified. 

Turning,  now,  to  the  writings  of  Amos  and  Hosea, 
one  finds  in  them  precisely  the  kind  of  syncretism  which 
the  conditions  described  above  would  have  led  one  to 
expect.  The  local  divinities,  or  Baals,  have  been  ab- 
sorbed by  Jahveh.  The  Canaanite  high  places  have 
become  his  sanctuaries.  Even  their  origins  have  been 
domesticated  in  Hebrew  tradition  by  the  stories  of  the 
Jahvists  and  Elohists  who  report  appearances  of  Jah- 
veh that  are  supposed  to  have  given  the  patriarchs 
occasion  to  found  them.  The  rites  formerly  employed 
to  propitiate  the  Baals  as  patrons  of  agriculture  are 
now  used  to  secure  the  favor  of  Jahveh,  who  has  taken 
their  place.  Hosea  makes  no  secret  of  his  conviction 
that  the  cultus  of  the  high  places,  notably  at  Bethel 
and  at  Gilgal,  consisted  of  Canaanite  religious  customs 
which  the  Israelites  had  adopted  with  the  civilization 
of  Palestine  and  transferred  to  Jahveh. 

Because  the  Deuteronomist  writes  from  the  point 
of  view  of  Moses,  he  has  to  use  the  future  tense  in  his 
attack  on  actual  conditions.  If  one  bears  this  fact  in 
mind  the  following  passage  affords  striking  confirma- 
tion of  Hosea's  charge:  "When  Jahveh  thy  God  shall 
cut  off  the  nations  from  before  thee  .  .  .  take  heed  to 
thyself  that  thou  be  not  tempted  to  imitate  them  .  .  . 
and  that  thou  inquire  not  after  their  gods,  saying,  How 
did  these  nations  worship  their  gods,  in  order  that  I 


196  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

also  may  do  likewise?  Thou  shalt  not  do  so  unto  Jah- 
veh  thy  God:  for  every  abomination  to  Jahveh,  which 
he  hateth  have  they  done  with  respect  to  their  gods; 
for  even  their  sons  and  their  daughters  do  they  burn 
in  the  fire  to  their  gods."  1  It  is  a  picture  of  his  own 
times  which  the  Deuteronomist  delineates  in  these 
words. 

The  legislation  of  Deuteronomy  particularly  pro- 
scribes three  things  which  the  prophets  had  execrated 
as  heathenish  infiltrations  into  popular  Jahvism:  — 

I.  Human  sacrifice.  Early  Jahvism,  as  is  well 
known,  regarded  child  sacrifice  as  a  divine  require- 
ment. Among  the  ordinances  set  before  the  Israelites 
on  the  authority  of  God  is  this:  "The  first-born  of  thy 
sons  thou  shalt  give  unto  me."  The  original  intent  of 
the  passage  is  made  unmistakable  by  the  following: 
"Likewise  shalt  thou  do  with  thine  oxen  and  with  thy 
sheep."  2  The  results  of  Palestinian  excavations  have 
proved  the  prevalence  of  child  sacrifice  among  the 
Canaanites.  If  the  claim  of  the  prophets,  that  this 
practice  was  unknown  in  Israel  before  their  settle- 
ment in  Canaan,  is  correct,  the  fourth  commandment 
of  the  Jahvistic  decalogue,  "Every  first-born  is  mine," 
attributed  to  Jahveh  in  the  Mosaic  legislation,  is  of 
purely  Canaanite  origin.  In  any  case  Deuteronomy 
counts  child  sacrifice  an  "abomination  to  Jahveh,"  8 

1  Dt.  12: 29,  30;  cf.  18: 10. 

2  Ex.  22:  29,  30.  Redemption  by  means  of  an  animal  is  a  later  prac- 
tice enjoined  in  an  addition  to  the  Jahvistic  decalogue,  Ex.  34: 19-20. 

*  Dt.  12:31.    Cf.  Ex.  34:  19;  II  Kings  16:3;  Jer.  7:31;  19:5;  Ezek. 


MONOJAHVISM  OF   DEUTERONOMY    197 

and  Jeremiah  makes  him  say,  "I  commanded  it  not, 
neither  came  it  into  my  mind."  Jeremiah's  denial,  let 
it  be  observed,  is  aimed  at  a  wrong  done  on  Jahveh's 
alleged  authority.  Apparently  there  survived  even  in 
his  day  some  who  claimed  divine  authority  for  child 
sacrifice.  The  prophet  Ezekiel  was  one  of  these,  and 
he  clings  to  the  tradition  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  he  is 
forced  to  admit  that  Jahveh  did  what  was  "not  good" 
when  he  gave  the  ordinance.1  The  well-known  story 
of  Abraham  and  Isaac  makes  dramatic  capital  out  of 
the  feelings  of  a  father  who  has  received  from  Jahveh 
the  command  to  sacrifice  his  only  son.  It  is  a  grievous 
charge  against  much  popular  religious  education  of  our 
time  that  it  still  uses  this  immoral  portraiture  of  God 
as  if  it  were  true,  thus  sinking  below  the  moral  level  of 
Jeremiah  and  Deuteronomy. 

2.  Religious  prostitution.  Both  male  and  female 
temple  prostitutes,  known  as  the  "holy  ones,"  were 
anciently  attached  to  sanctuaries  of  Jahveh.  Amos 
and  Hosea  denounce  this  form  of  impurity  as  they 
observed  it  at  Israel's  sanctuaries,2  and  the  Deuteron- 
omist  expressly  provides  that  "there  shall  be  among 

16:20,21;  also  Gen.  22.  "Molech"  is  probably  an  intentional  corruption 
of  "Melek,"  king,  giving  it  the  vowels  of  the  word  bosheth,  shame;  like 
Baal,  it  was  a  term  equally  applicable  to  any  deity,  and  was  certainly 
applied  to  Jahveh.  The  representation  of  the  Deuteronomists  that  sac- 
rifices of  children  among  the  Hebrews  were  made  only  to  alien  deities  is 
clearly  unhistorical.  The  bosheth  of  Jer.  3 :  24  and  11:13  is  shown  to  be 
the  same  as  Baal  or  Melek,  both  of  them  designations  applied  to  Jah- 
veh. Lev.  18:21  and  20:2-5  convey  the  impression  that  children  were 
sacrificed  to  Jahveh  as  Melek  even  in  the  temple  at  Jerusalem. 

1  Ezek.  20:25,  26. 

2  Am.  2:7;  Hos.  4: 14.   Cf.  I  Sam.  2:22. 


198  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

Israelitish  girls  or  boys  none  who  becomes  a  temple 
prostitute."  The  proceeds  of  their  infamous  traffic 
went  customarily  into  the  treasury  of  the  sanctuary. 
This  explains  the  curious  figure  of  speech  by  which  a 
late  prophetic  writer  promises  that  "the  gains  and 
hire"  of  Tyre  as  a  harlot  "shall  be  dedicated  to  Jah- 
veh."  1  Undoubtedly  the  religious  prostitutes  who 
were  quartered  in  the  temple  of  Jerusalem  at  the  time 
of  Josiah's  reformation  were  the  source  of  no  small  part 
of  "  the  money  that  had  been  brought  into  the  house  of 
Jahveh,"  and  which  Hilkiah  is  directed  to  use  for  the 
repairs  of  the  temple.2  It  is  this  form  of  consecrated 
licentiousness  which  the  Deuteronomist,  scornful  of 
such  profits,  expels  from  Jahvism.  "Thou  shalt  not," 
he  writes,  "bring  the  hire  of  a  harlot  or  the  wages  of  a 
dog  [male  temple  prostitute]  into  the  house  of  Jahveh 
thy  God  for  any  vow:  for  even  both  these  are  an  abom- 
ination unto  Jahveh  thy  God."  3 

This  class  of  persons  corresponds  to  the  hierodules 
of  Greek  and  Roman  temples.  They  figured  largely  in 
the  cult  of  the  Babylonian  Ishtar  and  the  Canaanite 
Astarte.4  Since  it  seems  improbable  that  nomadic 
Jahvism  was  acquainted  with  this  vile  institution,  we 
may  assume  that  it  came  into  Israel's  religion  through 
fusion  with  that  of  Canaan. 

1  Is.  23 : 1 7,  1 8.  2  Cf .  1 1  Kings  22 : 4  and  chap.  23. 

3  Dt.  23:18;  one  passage,  22:5,  forbids  the  wearing  of  garments  to 
disguise  sex,  probably  another  regulation  designed  to  check  religious 
prostitution. 

4  These  two  are  essentially  the  same.  The  Old  Testament  Ashtoreth 
is  an  intentional  perversion  to  suggest  bosheth,  "shame." 


MONOJAHVISM   OF   DEUTERONOMY    199 

3.  Images  of  Jahveh.  Certain  forms  of  expression  in 
the  Old  Testament  can  have  arisen  only  in  connection 
with  the  worship  of  an  image.  To  "appear  before 
Jahveh,"  to  "behold"  or  to  "seek"  his  "face,"  or  even 
to  "mollify  the  face  of  Jahveh"  are  expressions  that 
betray  a  concrete  origin,1  however  much  they  may 
have  been  spiritualized  in  later  times.  The  numerous 
Hebrew  terms  employed  to  designate  images  must  also 
be  taken  into  account.  But  the  long-continued  warfare 
of  the  prophets  against  the  use  of  images  furnishes  the 
most  decisive  evidence  of  their  commonness  both  in 
public  and  in  private  cults. 

The  favorite  symbol  of  the  Canaanite  Baals  was  the 
bull-image.  Doubtless  many  Canaanite  sanctuaries 
were  provided  with  such  images  as  a  matter  of  ancient 
custom.  The  subsequent  identification  of  Baal  with 
Jahveh  caused  them  to  be  appropriated  as  representa- 
tions of  Jahveh.  In  the  polemic  of  the  prophets  these 
bull-images  were  styled  "golden  calves,"  perhaps  in 
contemptuous  allusion  to  their  diminutive  size.2 

Taken  literally  this  slurring  phrase  has  become  re- 
sponsible for  the  popular  misconception  that  the 
Israelites,  with  beef-witted  perverseness,  lapsed  into 
actual  calf-worship,  and  that  on  the  most  trivial  pre- 
texts. On  the  contrary,  the  "  two  calves  of  gold  "  which 
Jeroboam  is  reported  to  have  set  up  in  the  northern 
sanctuaries  of  Bethel  and  Dan  were  examples  of  the 

1  Cf.  Ex.  34:23;  32:11;  I  Sam.  13:12,  "I  have  not  made  the  face 
of  Jahveh  pleasant."  See  Wellhausen,  Reste  arab.  Heidentums,  p.  105. 

2  Hos.  13:2. 


200  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

already  well-known  bull-images  used  to  represent  Jah- 
veh-Baal,  and  the  worship  accorded  to  them  was  the 
official  Jahveh-worship  of  the  time.  Even  in  the  ac- 
count of  Aaron's  connection  with  bull-worship,  the 
proclamation  of  a  feast  to  Jahveh  clearly  shows  that 
the  writer  censured  the  worship  of  the  image  as  a 
perversion  of  Jahveh-worship,  not  as  an  act  of  heathen 
idolatry.  The  bull-image  was  not  worshipped  as  such, 
but  was  to  them  a  representation  of  Jahveh.  Where- 
fore they  acclaimed  it  with  the  words:  "This  is  thy 
God,  O  Israel,  who  brought  thee  up  out  of  the  land  of 
Egypt."  *  The  extant  figure  of  a  bronze  bull,  recovered 
in  East  Jordanic  territory,  may  be  taken  as  a  fair  illus- 
tration of  these  portable  images,  which  in  some  cases, 
probably,  were  carved  out  of  wood  and  overlaid  with 
gold. 

For  various  good  reasons  it  seems  unlikely  that  the 
Israelites  employed  the  bull-image  as  a  symbol  for 
Jahveh  before  their  religion  syncretized  with  that  o." 
Canaan.  But  it  would  be  very  unsafe  to  assert  that 
Israel's  religion  was  originally  imageless.  The  super- 
stitious veneration  bestowed  upon  the  ark  indicates  a 
type  of  religiousness  that  had  by  no  means  risen  above 
the  use  of  concrete  symbols. 

1  Ex.  32:4.  JE  makes  this  form  of  idolatry  begin  with  Aaron  at  the 
time  of  the  exodus.  Although  this  narrative  is  almost  certainly  unhis- 
torical  it  is  prudent  to  entertain  the  possibility  that  the  Minaeans  may 
have  employed  the  bull-image  for  the  moon-god.  In  that  case  the  Israel- 
ites might  have  made  their  first  acquaintance  with  this  form  of  image 
worship  at  the  time  of  the  exodus.  Cf.  Nielsen,  Die  altarabische  Mond- 
religion  und  die  mosaische  Ueberlieferung  (1904),  p.  112.  Also  Barton, 
Semitic  Origins,  p.  201. 


MONOJAHVISM  OF   DEUTERONOMY    201 

The  Deuteronomic  crusade  against  images  and 
sacred  pillars  necessarily  had  the  effect  of  enhancing 
the  religious  importance  of  the  ark  in  the  temple  at 
Jerusalem.  A  reform  involving  the  destruction  of 
particular,  instead  of  all,  idolatrous  objects  only  falls 
under  the  suspicion  of  being  not  entirely  disinterested. 
Jeremiah  appears  to  have  felt  that  a  radical  reform, 
such  as  the  great  prophets  might  have  countenanced, 
should  have  included  the  repudiation  of  the  ark,  for 
he  covets  the  time  when  it  will  be  held  worthless.1  It 
must,  however,  be  regarded  as  a  very  significant  con- 
cession to  prophetic  feeling  that  the  ark  of  Jahveh  is 
pointedly  ignored  in  Deuteronomy.  Only  once  is  it 
indirectly  referred  to  as  "an  ark  of  wood"  made  to 
serve  as  a  receptacle  for  the  "tables  of  stone."  2  This 
is  the  more  remarkable  since  the  earlier  traditions  of 
JE  and  the  post- Deuteronomic  ritual  of  P  invest  the 
ark  with  rigid  taboos  and  treat  it  as  if  it  contained  the 
tinmen  praesens  itself.  One  cannot  help  feeling  that 
revival  of  idolatrous  regard  for  the  ark  in  post- Deu- 
teronomic times  would  have  been  avoided  if  it  had  been 
explicitly  included  among  the  objects  of  cult  that  were 
to  be  abolished. 

But  the  reform  party  gained  at  least  one  strategic 
advantage  by  securing  the  abolition  of  all  symbols  of 

1  Jer.  3:16. 

1  Dt.  10: 1-3.  Marti  and  others  regard  Dt.  10:8,  9,  as  a  redactor's  ad- 
dition. P  differs  from  D  in  alleging  that  Hezaleel,  not  Moses,  was  the 
maker  of  the  ark.  For  fuller  treatment  of  the  subject  cf.  Dibelius, 
Die  Lade  Jahve's  (1906),  and  Marti,  Geschichte  der  israelitischen  Religion 
(1907),  pp.  79-81- 


202  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

Jahveh's  presence  save  only  the  ark.  It  was  an  act  that 
added  to  the  effect  of  the  appointment  of  one  sanctuary 
for  ritual  worship,  for  it  helped  to  demolish  the  popular 
belief  that  there  was  more  than  one  Jahveh.  The  baal- 
ized  Jahvism  described  above  was  bound  to  become 
polytheistic  through  the  identification  of  Jahveh  with 
a  number  of  local  divinities.  The  process  might  be  de- 
scribed as  an  absorption  of  the  local  Baals  by  Jahveh. 
So  in  parts  of  Italy  the  absorption  of  ancient  local 
divinities  by  the  Virgin  Mary  has  fostered  among  the 
ignorant  classes  the  belief  that  there  are  different  ma- 
donnas. In  the  experience  of  the  writer  it  is  no  un- 
common thing  to  find  in  Naples  and  its  environs  pious 
common  folk  by  whom  the  various  famous  local  ma- 
donnas are  held  to  be  distinct  individuals.  This  might 
be  described  as  polymadonnism  in  the  same  sense  in 
which  we  shall  speak  of  polyjahvism. 

Despite  centuries  of  editing,  the  older  strata  of 
Hebrew  tradition  still  exhibit  clear  evidence  of  a  popu- 
lar religion  which  assumed  the  existence  of  more  than 
one  Jahveh.  One  naturally  looks  for  such  phenomena 
in  literature  that  has  sprung  more  immediately  from 
the  folk-mind.  But  even  in  more  thoughtful  circles 
the  disposition  to  assume  a  plurality  of  Jahvehs  ap- 
pears to  have  been  strongly  felt.  In  the  story  of  Ab- 
salom's rebellion  the  success  of  the  intrigue  turns  upon 
the  assumption  that  the  Jahveh  of  Hebron  is  not  the 
same  as  the  Jahveh  at  Jerusalem.  Although  the  sacred 
ark  was  at  Jerusalem,  David  found  nothing  strange  in 


MONOJAHVISM   OF   DEUTERONOMY    203 

the  request  of  Absalom  that  he  be  permitted  to  fulfil 
in  the  presence  of  the  Jahveh  at  Hebron  the  vow  he  had 
made  on  foreign  soil.1  Under  the  Deuteronomic  con- 
struction of  religion  the  proper  reply  would  have  been 
that  there  was  but  one  Jahveh,  and  that  he  must  be 
worshipped  only  at  Jerusalem.  But  neither  David  nor 
the  recorders  of  this  tradition  knew  anything  about 
a  "Mosaic"  law  of  Deuteronomy  and  its  doctrine  of 
the  single  sanctuary. 

Similar  testimony  is  afforded  by  a  passage  of  the 
prophet  Amos.  It  may  be  regarded  as  certain  that 
Amos  8  :  14  refers  to  the  Jahveh  of  Samaria,  the  Jah- 
veh of  Dan,  and  the  Jahveh  of  Beersheba.2  The  present 
form  of  the  Hebrew  text  is  the  result  of  a  process,  famil- 
iar to  students  of  Semitic  religion,  by  which  the  names 
of  deities  were  mutilated  or  obscured.  Such  intentional 
obscurations  are  the  words  translated  "sin"  3  and 
"way,"  by  which  neither  a  Hebrew  nor  any  other 
Semite  would  have  thought  of  swearing.  Behind  these 
pious  mutilations  of  the  text  lurk  the  different  local 
Jahvehs  [Baals]  worshipped  at  these  sanctuaries. 

This  general  view  of  the  Jahvch-Baal  religion  is 
borne  out  by  traditions  that  have  transmitted  incli- 

1  II  Sam.  15:7.  So  also  H.  P.  Smith,  Int.  Crit.  Com.,  p.  341  :  "It 
is  evident  as  in  the  case  of  Baal,  that  the  Jahveh  of  a  particular  place 
seemed  a  distinct  personality  in  the  common  apprehension.  Although 
the  ark  was  at  Jerusalem,  David  did  not  find  it  strange  that  Absa- 
lom should  want  to  worship  at  Hebron." 

2  Gen.  21:33  n°t  only  carries  the  founding  of  the  sanctuary  at  Beer- 
sheba to  pre-Israelitic  times,  but  reports  a  distinctive  name  for  the  deity 
worshipped  there. 

*  Dt.  9:21  refers  to  the  calf  symbol  of  Jahveh  as  "your  sin." 


204  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT 

vidual  names  for  the  Jahvehs  worshipped  at  particula> 
sanctuaries.  Hagar  "called  the  name  of  the  Jahveh 
that  spake  unto  her  El  Roi." 1  A  Jahvistic  narrator 
knew  that  under  a  sacred  tree  at  Beersheba  it  still  was 
customary  to  worship  Jahveh  as  El  01am.2  The  ap- 
propriation of  an  old  Canaanite  high  place  at  Ophra 
is  narrated  in  the  Book  of  Judges,  and  incidentally  we 
learn  how  the  deity  there  received  the  name  Jahveh 
Shalom.3  Analogous  religious  phenomena  require  us 
to  assume  a  similar  origin  for  the  names  of  Jahveh- 
jireh,  El-Bethel,  and  Jahveh-nissi.  They  are  the  origi- 
nal names  of  local  divinities  worshipped  by  the  ancient 
Hebrews.  Only  at  a  later,  and  theologically  more  re- 
fined, period  were  these  names  transferred  to  the  altars 
under  which  the  numen  was  supposed  to  dwell.4  These 
titular  distinctions,  that  doubtless  mark  the  absorp- 
tion of  various  local  Baals,  are  unmistakable  evidence 
of  a  popular  religion  which  naively  distinguished  be- 
tween various  local  Jahvehs. 

Passing  over  the  period  during  which  the  eighth 
century  prophets,  Amos,  Hosea,  and  Isaiah,  assailed 
the  unethical  ceremonial  religion  of  their  time,  the 
student  finds  himself  upon  the  threshold  of  changes 
that  foreshadow  Deuteronomy.  Micah  alludes  to  an 
evidently  numerous  party  opposed  to  the  prophets, 
The  latter  had  been  preaching  an  impending  political 
calamity,  a  message  to  which  the  new  party  replied 

1  Gen.  16:13.  2  Gen.  21:33. 

3  Judg.  6:24.  «  Gen.  22: 14;  35:7;  Ex.  17:15- 


MONOJAHVISM   OF   DEUTERONOMY    205 

with  its  watchword  "Jahveh  is  among  us;  no  evil  can 
come  upon  us."  *  This  faction  seems  to  have  inter- 
preted the  liberation  of  Jerusalem  from  the  army  of 
Sennacherib,  in  701  B.C.,  as  a  wonderful  demonstra- 
tion of  Jahveh's  power,  exerted  for  the  protection  of 
his  favorite  city  and  temple.  Jeremiah  draws  a  lesson 
of  evil  omen  for  Jerusalem  from  the  destruction  of  the 
ancient  sanctuary  of  Shiloh  where  Jahveh  "caused  his 
[my]  name  to  dwell  at  the  first."  2  But  his  opponents 
could  point  with  equal  propriety  to  the  fact  that  the 
northern  sanctuaries  had  already  passed  into  the  hands 
of  the  enemy  as  evidence  that  Jerusalem  was  the 
only  inviolable  seat  of  Jahveh.  Thus  the  closing  years 
of  the  eighth  century  prepared  the  way  for  Deuteron- 
omy and  the  centralization  of  worship  at  the  royal 
sanctuary.  The  Book  of  Jeremiah  shows  how  supersti- 
tious confidence  in  the  inviolability  of  the  temple  and 
the  temple-city  as  Jahveh's  residence  had  by  that 
time  developed  into  a  dogma.3 

There  is  general  agreement  now  that  two  differ- 
ent tendencies  merged  in  the  reformation  of  Josiah. 
If,  on  the  one  hand,  the  restriction  of  worship  to 
Jerusalem  was  the  result  of  the  prophets'  activity,  it 
satisfied,  on  the  other  hand,  the  above-mentioned  in- 
violability party  whose  views,  as  the  writings  of  Micah 

1  Micah  3: 1 1.  Cf.  Jer.  6: 14,  17;  7: 10.  Perhaps  Am.  5: 14  and  Micah 
2:6  are  pertinent,  also,  in  this  connection.  The  latter  verse  should  be 
emended  to  read:  "Prophesy  ye  not,"  they  are  ever  preaching.  "One 
must  not  prophesy  (i.e.,  preach)  about  such  things.  The  house  of  Jacob 
will  not  be  put  to  shame." 

2  Jer.  7:12-15.  8  Cf.  Jer.  chaps.  7  and  26. 


206  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

and  Jeremiah  prove,  were  rejected  on  ethical  grounds 
by  the  prophets.  Isaiah  had  prophesied  that  Jahveh 
would  turn  Jerusalem  into  an  altar  dripping  with  the 
blood  of  the  slain,1  and  Micah,  that  Mount  Zion  would 
be  visited  by  the  same  fate  that  had  turned  into  ruins 
so  many  sanctuaries  in  East  Jordanic  territory:  "Je- 
rusalem shall  become  a  heap  of  ruins,  and  the  temple 
mountain  a  wooded  height."  2 

The  old  prophetic  party  favored  the  Deuteronomic 
movement  because  the  restriction  of  the  sacrificial  cult 
to  Jerusalem,  and  the  abolition  of  all  other  sanctua- 
ries, seemed  to  be  the  only  effective  means  of  stamp- 
ing out  the  Jahveh-Baal  worship  and  some  newly  intro- 
duced Assyrian  cults.  Their  endeavor  was  to  reform 
the  moral  character  of  the  people  by  reforming  their 
religious  customs.  The  outcome  was  an  utter  defeat 
of  their  purpose. 

This  was  due  to  the  fact  that  the  reform  movement 
also  received  the  zealous  support  of  the  inviolability 
party,  which  was  represented  chiefly  by  the  priests 
of  the  Jerusalem  temple.  For  them  the  watchword, 
one  Jahveh,  one  temple,  and  one  priesthood,  attached 
itself  to  interests  that  were  decidedly  personal.  By 
proclaiming  Jerusalem  as  the  only  and  inviolable  resi- 
dence of  Jahveh  they  were  increasing  their  income  and 
enhancing  the  importance  of  their  office.  By  the  same 
act  they  denied  the  essence  of  prophetic  religion  which 
had  constituted  moral  conduct,  not  the  temple  and  the 

Ms.  29:2,  3.  2  Micah,  3:12. 


MONOJAHVISM   OF   DEUTERONOMY    207 

cultus,  the  palladium  of  the  people's  safety.  They  did 
not  even  shrink  from  appealing  to  the  newly  found  law- 
book of  Deuteronomy  in  order  to  give  themselves  the 
appearance  of  orthodoxy  in  their  opposition  to  Jere- 
miah.1 This  was  probably  the  first,  but  not  the  only, 
time  that  an  orthodoxy,  founded  upon  ignorant  and 
selfish  misinterpretation  of  Scripture,  employed  the 
achievements  of  braver  fellow  combatants  in  order  to 
place  them  under  fire  from  the  rear. 

In  any  case  it  may  be  regarded  as  certain  that  Deu- 
teronomy did  not  spring  from  homogeneous  motives 
either  in  its  origin  or  in  its  introduction.  Only  with  this 
understanding  of  the  situation  is  it  possible  to  explain 
the  attitude  of  Jeremiah  toward  the  new  book  of  the 
law.  He  is  the  champion  of  ethics,  his  opponents  of 
magic,  in  religion.  Although  the  leading  ideas  of  the 
prophets  had  found  expression  in  Deuteronomy,  in  a 
conflict  of  that  kind  it  was  easier  to  use  it  in  support 
of  the  inviolability  doctrine  of  the  priests,  than  of 
Jeremiah's  ethical  demands. 

This  liability  to  abuse  arose  naturally  out  of  the 
original  purpose  of  the  book,  the  restriction  of  worship 
to  Jerusalem.  The  purpose  of  the  author  is  most  ap- 
parent in  the  twelfth  chapter,  which  probably  formed 

1  Cf.  Jer.  7:7-15  and  8:8,  9.  The  Book  of  the  Covenant,  Ex.  20-23, 
cannot  be  meant  by  the  "  law  of  Jahveh  "  in  the  latter  passage,  because  it 
knows  nothing  about  Jerusalem  as  the  seat  of  the  only  legitimate  sanc- 
tuary. The  oneness  of  the  sanctuary,  however,  is  the  central  doctrine  of 
Deuteronomy.  Jeremiah  opposes  the  unethical  use  which  his  enemies 
make  of  Deuteronomy  in  that  they  heighten  the  divine  appointment  of 
Jerusalem  as  the  only  legitimate  place  of  worship  into  a  guarantee  of  its 
perpetuity. 


208  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

the  beginning  of  the  original  edition  of  Deuteronomy. 
In  express  contradiction  of  an  earlier  word  of  Jahveh  ! 
even  famous  old  high  places  like  Bethel,  Hebron,  and 
Gibeon  are  by  implication  declared  never  to  have  been 
legitimate  places  of  worship.    In  fact  all  the  sanctua- 
ries famed  in  Hebrew  song  and  story,  places  where,  as 
Jeremiah  said  of  ill-fated  Shiloh,  Jahveh  "caused  his 
name  to  dwell  at  the  first,"  are  outlawed  and  branded 
as  imitations  of  Canaanite  idolatry  by  reading  back 
the  law  of  the  one  sanctuary  into  the  time  of  Moses. 
By  this  means  Deuteronomy  introduces  a  radical 
innovation  under  the  guise  of  a  reform.    Worship  is 
concentrated  at  the  chosen  sanctuary  of  Jerusalem 
and  all  the  others  are  abolished.    Driver  pertinently 
observes  that  to  us  the  limitation  of  public  worship 
to  Jerusalem  may  appear  "to  be  a  retrograde  step, 
and  inconsistent  with  the  author's  lofty  conception 
of  the  Divine  nature."  2    The  very  nature  of  the  pre- 
scription involved  a  particular  emphasis  upon  place 
and  ritual  which  the  priests  who  were  favored  by  the 
new  regulation  were  keen  enough  to  exploit  in  their 
own  interest.   The  impulse  which  this  gave  to  the  de- 
velopment of  legalism  and  sacerdotalism  in  Israel's 
religion  proved  it  to  be  indeed  a  backward  step.    But, 
for  a  people  given  over  to  polyjahvism,  fostered  and  in 
part  originated  by  a  multiplicity  of  sanctuaries,  re- 
striction of  worship  to  one  sanctuary  was  the  most  ef- 
fective method  of  inculcating  belief  in  one  Jahveh. 

1  Ex.  20:24.  2  Int.  Crit.  Com.,  Dt„  p.  xxix. 


MONOJAHVISM   OF   DEUTERONOMY    209 

We  have  shown  at  some  length  how  the  absorption 
of  many  local  deities  by  Jahveh,  and  the  consequent 
pilgrimages  to  many  sanctuaries,  had  fostered  a  belief 
in  different  local  Jahvehs.  This  naive  polyjahvism, 
however,  does  not  appear  to  have  become  self-con- 
scious until  its  existence  was  endangered.  In  a  settled 
mode  of  life  clan-feeling  is  strengthened  by  a  sense  of 
fond  attachment  to  one's  native  land.  This  fondness 
of  man  for  his  surroundings  was  in  Israel,  as  elsewhere, 
attributed  also  to  the  national  God.  As  in  the  time 
of  David,  so  also  in  later  times  there  was  a  popular 
belief  that  he  was  inseparable  from  the  land.  This 
explains  the  readiness  with  which  the  inviolability 
party  now  asserted  that  Jerusalem,  the  only  legitimate 
place  of  worship,  was  the  particular  dwelling-place  of 
Jahveh  in  Palestine. 

But  the  founding  of  other  sanctuaries,  as  narrated 
in  Genesis,  was  equally  associated  with  the  belief  that 
their  numina  were  accessible  within  the  sacred  pre- 
cincts and  that  their  activity  proceeded  thence.  The 
Dcuteronomic  innovation  involved  so  profound  a 
change  in  the  religious  life  of  the  nation  that  many 
voices  must  have  been  raised  in  protest  even  though 
they  did  no  more  than  to  reassert  the  words  of  that 
spokesman  of  Jahveh  who  said  "in  every  place  where 
I  [Jahveh]  record  my  name  will  I  come  unto  thee  and 
bless  thee."  The  editors  and  compilers  of  the  Deuter- 
onomic  and  priestly  literature,  however,  have  taken 
care  to  silence  any  such  protests. 


210  THE   OLD  TESTAMENT 

The  best  objection  that  popular  religion  could  bring 
against  the  abolition  of  the  high  places  was,  either  that 
different  Jahvehs  (Baals)  were  being  worshipped  at  the 
different  sanctuaries,  or  that  the  one  Jahveh  mani- 
fested himself  in  different  ways  at  the  various  shrines. 
Both  views  probably  found  champions  simultaneously, 
and  the  hortatory  section  (Dt.  chaps.  6-n)  would 
have  proved  well  adapted  to  meet  both  objections. 
Whether  or  not  these  chapters  are  an  addition  made 
soon  after  621  B.C.  is  immaterial  in  this  connection. 
There  can  be  no  doubt  that  they  were  intended  to  in- 
culcate the  faithful  observance  of  the  regulations  de- 
vised to  secure  the  concentration  of  worship  at  Jeru- 
salem. 

The  foregoing  discussion  has  made  it  apparent  that 
a  peculiar  significance  attaches  to  the  Deuteronomic 
declaration  of  the  oneness  of  Jahveh.  According  to 
Semitic  modes  of  thinking  the  oneness  of  the  sanctuary 
involved  the  oneness  of  the  deity.  In  order  to  over- 
ride all  opposition  that  may  or  might  have  come  from 
champions  of  earlier  usages  and  beliefs  the  Deuteron- 
omist  declares,  "Hear,  O  Israel,  Jahveh  our  God  is  one 
Jahveh." 

But  this  declaration  of  the  unity  of  Jahveh  is  not 
equivalent  to  monotheism,  which  precludes  the  exist- 
ence of  other  deities.  The  Deuteronomist  still  believes 
in  the  reality  of  other  gods,  although  he  subordinates 
them  to  Jahveh.  It  is  best,  therefore,  to  treat  the 
Deuteronomic  stage  of  development  as  a  thing  by  itself, 


MONOJAHVISM   OF   DEUTERONOMY    211 

as  the  reduction  of  a  hazy  polyjahvism  to  an  explicit 
monojahvism,  and  the  depotentiation  of  other  deities  in 
the  interest  of  Jahveh's  supremacy. 

The  correctness  of  this  view  is  borne  out  by  other 
considerations  which  have  been  ably  urged  by  Budde.1 
A  series  of  Assyrian  conquests,  begun  in  the  ninth  cen- 
tury B.C.,  gradually  led  to  complete  subjugation  of  the 
Mediterranean  coast  lands.  After  the  destruction  of 
the  northern  kingdom,  Judah  became  thoroughly 
Assyrianized  during  the  long  reign  of  Manasseh,  who 
is  mentioned  among  the  vassals  of  Assyria  in  the  in- 
scriptions of  Esarhaddon  and  Ashurbanipal.  Zepha- 
niah  denounces  the  adoption  of  foreign  dress  and  cus- 
toms, inferentially  Assyrian,  while  the  second  Book  of 
Kings  mentions  the  introduction  of  Assyrian  forms  of 
cult.  The  horses  of  the  sun-god  Shamash  were  kept  in 
the  chamber  of  a  eunuch  at  the  entrance  to  the  Jerusa- 
lem temple,  and  on  the  roof  were  altars  erected  for 
the  worship  of  "the  host  of  heaven."  From  the  fact 
that  Deuteronomy  particularly  proscribes  the  latter, 
involving,  as  it  did,  the  licentious  worship  of  the  god- 
dess Ishtar,  one  may  infer  that  this  form  of  Assyrian 
idolatry  was  especially  rampant.  The  act  of  housing 
the  gods  of  the  Assyrian  pantheon  within  the  precincts 
and  under  the  roof  of  Jahveh's  sanctuary  raises  the 
question  of  the  relationship  into  which  they  were 
brought  to  him.     The  most  plausible  supposition  is 

1  Budde,  Aufdem  Wege  zum  Monothcismus  (Rektoratsrede), Marburg, 
1910. 


212  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

that  the  Assyrian  deities  were  brought  into  subordi- 
nate relation  to  Jahveh  as  his  guests.  This  involved 
the  assertion  of  Jahveh's  supremacy  over  the  astral 
world,  which  was  their  particular  sphere  of  manifes- 
tation. Latent  tendencies  toward  such  a  development 
are  discernible  at  an  early  period  in  the  Song  of  Deb- 
orah, where  "from  heaven  fought  the  stars,  from 
their  courses  they  fought  against  Sisera,"  1  and  in  a 
fragment  of  another  ancient  song  in  which  Jahveh 
bids  sun  and  moon  stand  still  in  order  that  Joshua 
may  complete  his  victory.2 

At  a  later  period  Hebrew  poets  were  especially  fond 
of  asserting  Jahveh's  power  over  sun,  moon,  and  stars, 
and  he  becomes  in  particular  the  God  of  heaven.  What- 
ever the  phrase  "God  of  Hosts"  may  have  meant  at 
other  times,  during  the  Assyrian  period,  when  "the 
host  of  heaven"  meant  the  starry  host,  it  was  almost 
certainly  applied  to  Jahveh  as  the  controller  of  the 
heavenly  bodies. 

In  brief,  the  evidence  points  to  a  subordination  of 
the  astral  divinities  of  Assyria  to  Jahveh  as  the  God  of 
heaven.  This  explains  the  remarkable  reasoning  of  the 
Deuteronomist  according  to  which  Jahveh  has  chosen 
Israel  for  his  own  peculiar  service,  but  has  assigned  to 
other  nations  the  worship  of  his  subordinates,  the  astral 
divinities.  "Take  heed  .  .  .  lest  thou  lift  up  thine  eyes 
unto  heaven,  and  when  thou  seest  the  sun  and  the 
moon  and  the  stars,  even  all  the  host  of  heaven,  thou 

1  Judg.  5:20.  2  Josh.  10:12. 


MONOJAHVISM   OF   DEUTERONOMY    213 

be  drawn  away  and  worship  them,  and  serve  them, 
which  Jahveh  thy  God  hath  allotted  unto  all  the 
peoples  under  the  whole  heaven."  x  It  is  in  keeping 
with  this  view  that  he  declares  Jahveh  to  be  the  one 
to  whom  "belongeth  heaven  and  the  heaven  of  heav- 
ens the  earth  and  all  that  is  therein."  2  He  is  "God 
of  gods,  and  Lord  of  lords,  the  great  God,  the  mighty 
and  the  terrible."  3 

This  is  not  the  language  of  monotheism.4  It  is  an 
attempt  to  define  Jahveh's  relation  to  other  deities. 
They  are  his  underlings  and  rule  by  his  sufferance. 
Foreign  nations  come  within  the  purview  of  Jahveh's 
interest  only  as  servants  of  his  vicegerents.  Thus  for- 
eigners are  servants  of  servants,  while  Israelites  have 
been  elected  to  the  service  of  the  God  of  gods. 

Were  one  inclined  to  take  a  static  view  of  scrip- 
ture and  to  interpret  Deuteronomy  as  did  the  oppo- 
nents of  Jeremiah,  one  might  fitly  argue  that  the  theory 
set  forth  above  leaves  no  room  for  our  Christian  enter- 


1  Dt.  4:19. 

2  Dt.  10: 14.    Marti,  HSAT,  renders  "heaven  to  its  utmost  heights." 
8  Dt.  10:17. 

4  Dt.  4:28,  and  28  136,  64,  refer  to  heathen  gods  as  mere  wood  and 
stone,  a  characterization  that  may  be  taken  to  imply  their  unreality. 
Such  an  implication  would  involve  the  assumption  of  monotheism.  How- 
ever, these  verses  occur  in  exilic  additions  to  Deuteronomy.  Cf.  Marti, 
in  HSAT,  and  Steuernagel,  FAnleitung,  p.  197.  —  Dt.  29: 17  occurs  in  a 
supplementary  part  of  D  and  may  be  a  redactor's  expansion.  Dt.  4:35, 
39,  belong  to  the  same  supplementary  stratum  as  4: 19  and,  therefore, 
must  be  explained  in  harmony  with  the  latter  passage  which  clearly  and 
decisively  precludes  monotheism.  "There  is  none  else  beside  him"  then 
must  mean  there  is  no  other  god  for  Israel.  The  astral  divinities  whom 
Israelites  worship  beside  him  in  the  temple  at  Jerusalem  have  been 
allotted  to  foreign  nations. 


214  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

prise  of  foreign  missions,  since  they  would  be  an  inter- 
ference with  divine  decrees.  If  God  has  joined  to- 
gether the  heathen  and  their  deities,  why  should  man 
put  them  asunder? 

It  is  not  surprising  that  the  particularism  of  Deuter- 
onomy, in  legalistic  circles,  did  develop  into  a  kind  of 
Hebrew  Monroe  doctrine:  Israel  for  Jahveh  alone, 
Jahveh  for  Israel  alone.  Deutero- Isaiah  and  the  large- 
hearted  author  of  the  Book  of  Jonah  attempt  to  check 
the  growing  exclusiveness  of  Jewish  orthodoxy,  but 
with  indifferent  success.  Ezra  tears  his  hair  when  he 
learns  that  Jews  have  married  foreign  wives  and  de- 
mands that  they  shall  put  away  both  them  and  their 
children.  The  compilers  of  the  Priests'  Code  do  their 
utmost  to  make  Hebrew  history  teach  that  God  is  in- 
terested only  in  the  uncontaminated  Jewish  stock.  By 
providing  these  views  with  divine  sanctions  they  de- 
graded the  idea  of  God  and  made  it  more  difficult  to 
secure  recognition  for  the  great  fact  of  God's  universal 
fatherhood. 

A  peculiar  phenomenon  is  the  survival  in  exilic  and 
post-exilic  literature  of  modes  of  speech  which  con- 
tinue to  imply  that  Jahveh  divides  the  rule  of  the 
world  with  subordinate  deities.  In  Ps.  82  the  gods  as- 
semble around  Jahveh's  throne,  and  are  warned  to 
exercise  just  judgment  unless  they  expect  to  die  like 
human  beings.  In  the  Book  of  Daniel  x  the  depoten- 
tiated  national  deities  appear  as  satraps  of  the  heav- 

1  Dan.  10:13  /• 


MONOJAHVISM   OF   DEUTERONOMY    215 

enly  King  Jahveh,  as  the  patron  angels  of  their  re- 
spective nations. 

Inasmuch  as  Jeremiah  l  had  already  taken  the  final 
step  beyond  Deuteronomy  by  declaring  that  heathen 
divinities  were  "no-gods,"  and  since  in  the  Psalms  2 
especially  language  implying  a  belief  in  the  real  exist- 
ence of  other  gods  is  coupled  with  declarations  of  their 
unreality,  it  seems  safe  to  assume  that  some  allusions 
to  rival  deities  in  the  later  literature  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment are  mere  figures  of  speech. 

But  after  every  allowance  has  been  made  on  this 
score  there  remain  passages  which  indicate  the  survival 
of  polytheistic  notions  long  after  theoretical  monothe- 
ism had  made  its  appearance.  This  is  in  keeping  with 
experience  in  other  spheres  of  human  progress  where 
one  observes  the  same  overlapping  of  the  old  and  the 
new,  the  primitive  and  the  more  advanced. 

The  preceding  discussion  may  be  briefly  summarized 
as  follows:  syncretism  of  the  nomadic  religion  of  the 
Hebrews  with  the  agricultural  religion  of  the  Canaan- 
ites  led  to  the  adoption  of  the  Canaanite  sanctuaries, 
the  fusion  of  Jahveh  with  the  numerous  Baals,  and  the 
introduction  into  the  ritual  of  much  that  was  origi- 
nally peculiar  to  the  worship  of  the  latter.  Among 
the  corrupt  practices  taken  over  from  Baalism  prob- 
ably are  to  be  reckoned  child  sacrifice,  the  maintenance 
of  male  and  female  temple  prostitutes,  and  the  wor- 
ship of  Jahveh  under  the  form  of  a  bull-image. 

1  Jer.  2:11;  16:19,20.  2  Ps.  96:4,  5;97:7.  9- 


216  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

The  Baals  being  many,  and  strongly  individualized 
at  various  local  shrines,  where  they  bore  proper  names, 
their  absorption  by  Jahveh  necessarily  led,  in  popular 
religion,  to  polyjahvism,  i.e.,  to  the  splitting  of  Jahveh 
into  Jahvehs.  The  different  local  priesthoods,  each 
depending  for  its  prosperity  upon  the  popularity  of  its 
own  particular  sanctuary,  would  naturally  encourage 
belief  in  the  distinctness  of  rival  Jahvehs.  The  Deu- 
teronomist  significantly  charges  Aaron,  the  literary 
symbol  of  the  Hebrew  priesthood,  with  complicity  in 
the  establishment  of  the  Baalized  Jahvism  which  he 
combats. 

A  prophetic  reaction  against  all  that  seemed  foreign 
in  life  and  in  worship  found  literary  expression  in  Deu- 
teronomy during  the  reign  of  Manasseh.  The  word  of 
Jahveh  through  Moses  is  the  form  of  appeal  to  the  peo- 
ple. Polyjahvism  is  attacked,  doctrinally,  by  the  dec- 
laration "Hear,  O  Israel,  Jahveh  our  God  is  one  Jah- 
veh"; practically,  by  the  centralization  of  worship  at 
one  sanctuary.  A  patriotic  motive  may  also  have  been 
behind  the  movement  toward  centralization,1  because 
the  existence  of  many  sanctuaries  had  exerted  a  po- 
litically divisive  influence.  The  doctrinal  reform  of 
Jahvism,  however,  is  not  carried  to  the  point  01 
monotheism,  but  stops  for  the  time  being  with  mono- 
jahvism. 

The  discovery  and  promulgation  of  Deuteronomy, 
followed  by  the  reformation  under  Josiah,  conferred 

1  Cf.  I  Kings,  12:25-33. 


MONOJAHVISM   OF   DEUTERONOMY    217 

power  and  distinction  upon  the  Jerusalem  priesthood. 
The  latter,  assisted  by  other  elements,  appropriated 
the  Deuteronomic  movement  for  their  own  ends  by 
heightening  the  divine  sanction  for  the  choice  of  Jeru- 
salem into  a  guarantee  of  its  perpetuity.  Jeremiah 
came  into  conflict  with  this  inviolability  party  because 
he  championed  the  ethical  ideals  of  the  prophets,  to 
which  Deuteronomy  was  intended  to  give  practical 
enforcement. 

That  Deuteronomic  theology  has  not  advanced  to 
the  point  of  absolute  monotheism  is  proved  by  the 
crass  particularism  of  supplementary  parts  of  Deu- 
teronomy, like  the  fourth  chapter.  The  introduction 
of  the  Assyrian  astral  religion,  together  with  the  hous- 
ing of  its  symbols,  altars,  and  ministers  in  the  temple 
of  Jerusalem,  furnishes  occasion  for  the  subjection  of 
rival  deities  to  Jahveh.  Their  existence,  therefore,  re- 
mains unchallenged.  The  view  is  propounded  that 
Jahveh  has  allotted  these  gods  to  be  worshipped  by 
foreign  nations,  and  has  elected  the  Israelites  for  his 
own  service. 

Jeremiah  is  the  first  to  move  in  the  direction  of  theo- 
retical monotheism  by  declaring  these  subordinate 
deities  "  no-gods "  and  "nonentities."  But  the  particu- 
larism of  Deuteronomy  is  increasingly  and  mischiev- 
ously exploited  in  the  priestly  literature  of  later  Old 
Testament  times.  It  may  in  part  be  charged  to  this 
particularism  that  polytheistic  ideas  and  expressions 
survive  to  a  comparatively  late  period. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

THE  SOCIAL  ETHICS  OF  DEUTERONOMY 

I 

Certain  fundamental  aspects  of  the  Deuteronomic 
ideas  of  God,  discussed  in  the  preceding  chapter,  have 
prepared  us  to  consider  the  testimony  of  Deuteronomic 
legislation  to  the  growth  of  Israel's  moral  ideals.  Deu- 
teronomy, as  it  stands,  does  not  attempt  to  regulate 
with  its  precepts  the  entire  life  of  the  people.  It  takes 
for  granted  the  existence  of  an  established  system  of 
judicature,  of  ritual,  and  of  social  customs  and  institu- 
tions. There  doubtless  was  much  in  this  established 
order  of  things  which,  under  the  Deuteronomic  view  of 
divine  requirements,  could  be  either  ignored  or  tacitly 
approved.  With  such  matters  the  book  does  not  con- 
cern itself.  It  selects  for  treatment  those  parts  of  the 
religious  and  social  system  which  are  to  be  changed. 
Some  of  the  more  fundamental  of  these  changes,  made 
necessary  by  the  law  of  the  central  sanctuary,  have 
already  been  discussed.  We  may  reasonably  assume, 
too,  that  the  codifiers  of  Deuteronomy  restated  with 
special  emphasis  some  old  regulations  which  under  the 
new  order  had  moved  from  a  secondary  place  to  one  of 
primary  importance. 

In  this  view  of  Deuteronomy,  its  protests  and  legis- 
lative changes,  no  less  than  its  emphases,  acquire 


ETHICS  OF   DEUTERONOMY        219 

special  ethical  significance.  Our  information,  it  must 
be  confessed,  would  be  more  complete  if  we  knew  more 
precisely  the  nature  of  the  idolatrous  practices  which 
are  condemned,  and  the  exact  character  of  that  pre- 
Deuteronomic  form  of  popular  religion  which  is  to  be 
changed  in  faith  and  in  practice.  Taken  as  a  whole, 
then,  the  legislation  of  Deuteronomy  expresses  a  degree 
of  intention,  or  deliberation,  which  makes  it  a  pecu- 
liarly reliable  witness  to  the  religious  faith  and  social 
ethics  of  the  seventh  century  B.C.  Being  set  forth  ex- 
plicitly as  an  expression  of  the  will  and  nature  of  Jahveh 
we  possess  in  Deuteronomy  an  excellent  means  of  de- 
termining the  extent  to  which  the  Deuteronomists  had 
moralized  their  idea  of  God.  For  the  character  of  Jah- 
veh cannot  be  dissociated  from  the  character  of  a  law 
which  is  claimed  to  be  his  utterance. 

Inasmuch  as  in  the  social  ethics  of  Deuteronomy  we 
are  supposed  to  possess,  in  the  main,  the  moral  teach- 
ings of  the  prophets  reduced  to  a  practical  system,  we 
are  bound  to  ask  whether  the  ethical  defects  of  Deu- 
teronomy are  to  be  regarded  as  having  been  inherent 
also  in  the  teaching  of  the  prophets  from  Amos  to  Zeph- 
aniah.  The  practical  rejection  by  the  prophets  of  that 
cultus  which  in  Deuteronomy  is  deemed  of  sufficient 
value  to  be  reformed  and  regulated,  and  the  hostile 
attitude  assumed  by  Jeremiah  toward  those  who  seem 
to  have  urged  the  finality  and  sufficiency  of  the  new 
law,1  warn  us  against  a  hasty  identification  of  pro- 

1  Jcr.  8:8,  9. 


V  ' 


220  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

phetic  and  Deuteronomic  religion.  But,  in  most  mat- 
ters pertaining  to  social  institutions  and  the  regula- 
tion of  the  individual's  duty  as  a  member  of  society, 
the  pre-exilic  prophets,  with  the  possible  exception  of 
Jeremiah,  appear  not  to  require  more  than  is  set  forth 
in  Deuteronomy.  This  consideration  should  serve  as 
a  check  to  one  who  feels  tempted  to  read  into  the 
silences  and  the  general  statements  of  the  prophets  a 
higher  standard  of  civic  or  personal  morality  than  is 
found  in  Deuteronomy.  Generally  speaking,  the  moral 
limitations  of  the  one  were  doubtless  those  of  the  other. 
But  the  most  valuable  prophetic  element  in  Deuteron- 
omy is  its  forward  look,  its  moral  aspiration.  The  work 
and  faith  of  the  prophets  are  to  be  sought  in  its  spirit, 
which  might  have  proved  capable  of  bringing  ever  en- 
larging areas  of  the  people's  moral  endeavor  under  its 
sway.  But  Deuteronomy,  as  we  shall  show  in  the 
chapter  on  Jeremiah,  fell  at  once  into  the  hands  of  those 
who  killed  the  spirit  with  the  letter. 

Inquiry  into  the  status  of  those  human  rights  which 
we  now  consider  universal  and  inalienable  shows  that 
Deuteronomy,  like  the  earlier  codes,  has  no  conscience 
regarding  the  institution  of  slavery.  Its  right  to  exist 
and  continue  is  taken  for  granted  as  placidly  as  the 
existence  of  the  cultus.  To  one  familiar  with  Hebrew 
institutions  such  a  statement  must  seem  superfluous, 
since  the  Old  Testament  never  reaches  a  point  where 
it  condemns  slavery  in  itself.  But  the  average  reader 
of  Deuteronomy  needs  to  be  reminded  of  the  fact,  in 


ETHICS  OF   DEUTERONOMY       221 

order  that  he  may  make  a  just  ethical  appraisal  ot 
Deuteronomic  social  ethics.  Whether  slavery  in  Israel 
was  of  a  mild  or  severe  form  need  not  concern  us  here. 
It  doubtless  was  prevailingly  mild.  That  circumstance, 
however,  should  not  be  urged  in  excuse  of  an  institu- 
tion which  remains  at  its  best  a  social  crime.  The  pages 
of  some  of  the  earlier  apologists  for  Old  Testament 
ethics  might  lead  one  to  suppose  that  men  went  about 
looking  for  positions  as  Hebrew  slaves.  It  is  sufficient 
to  know  that  the  Hebrews  themselves  regarded  slavery, 
at  least  in  a  foreign  land,  as  one  of  the  worst  calamities 
that  could  befall  them.1 

Deuteronomy  provides  that  a  Hebrew  slave,  who 
escapes  to  Palestine  from  his  foreign  master,  shall  not 
be  restored  to  his  owner,2  and  a  Hebrew  who  kidnaps 
one  of  his  fellow-countrymen  and  sells  him  into  slavery 
is  to  be  punished  with  death.3  One  may  observe  in 
these  and  other  Deuteronomic  regulations  in  regard  to 
slavery  an  accentuation  of  the  tendency  to  heighten 
the  claims  of  humanity  in  the  case  of  Hebrews  only. 
They  were  believed  to  be  entitled  to  treatment  quite 
different  from  that  accorded  to  a  foreigner.  A  late 
supplemental  addition  to  the  Priests'  Code  prohibits 

1  Dt.  28:32;  cf.  15: 15,  and  Ex.  21 :  16. 

2  Dt.  23: 15,  16.  Vs.  16  indicates  that  an  Israelite  slave  is  meant.  But 
it  may  have  applied  to  all  slaves  escaped  from  foreigners.  If  so,  I  Kings, 
2:39ff->  where  Shimei  goes  to  Philistine  territory  to  recover  his  escaped 
slaves,  shows  that  Hebrew  slaveholders  did  not  expect  the  same  treat- 
ment from  their  foreign  neighbors.  It  may  be  safely  asserted  that  this 
regulation  was  not  enforced  in  regard  to  runaway  slaves  among  the 
Hebrews.   Cf.  sees.  16-20  of  the  Hammurabi  Code. 

3  Dt.  24:7.  Cf.  Gen.  37:27  where  Joseph's  brother  Judah  proposes 
to  sell  him  into  slavery  among  foreigners. 


222  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

the  enslavement  of  Hebrews,  but  permits  the  chosen 
nation  to  supply  its  need  of  slaves  by  purchase  from 
"the  nations  that  are  round  about,"  or  from  among 
the  descendants  of  resident  aliens,  or  clients.  Such 
slaves  were  not  subject  to  release  and  could  be  kept  in 
bondage  forever.1 

But  Deuteronomy  still  assumes  the  presence,  in 
Judah,  of  Hebrew  slaves,  who  have  sold  themselves  by 
reason  of  poverty,  or  have  been  sold  into  bondage  by 
their  parents.  It  greatly  ameliorates  the  condition  of 
these  slaves  by  providing  for  their  liberation,  women 
as  well  as  men,  at  the  end  of  six  years.2  Since  freedom 
without  means  of  subsistence  would  in  those  times 
have  been  a  fatal  boon,  involving  immediate  relapse 
into  servitude,  the  Hebrew  master  is  directed  not  to  let 
a  slave  go  empty-handed,  but  to  supply  him  liberally 
from  his  store.  There  are  weighty  reasons  for  think- 
ing that  this  law  never  passed  into  practice,  for  after 
a  reluctant  release  of  slaves  by  citizens  of  Jersualem 
under  the  pressure  of  a  siege  during  the  time  of  Jere- 
miah, they  were  caught  and  put  into  bondage  again  as 
soon  as  the  crisis  appeared  to  have  passed.3  But  even 
unrealized  religious  ideals  of  benevolence  have  their 
value,  for  they  keep  alive  a  feeling  of  dissatisfaction 
with  the  average  of  current  morality. 

1  Lev.  25:44-46. 

2  Dt.   15:12-18.     The  earlier  law  decided  against  the  liberation  of 
women  ;  cf.  Ex.  21:7. 

3  Jer.  34:8-16.  Slavery  here  appears  as  anything  but  a  semi-benevolent 
institution. 


ETHICS  OF   DEUTERONOMY        223 

A  late  priestly  writer  *  considerably  reduced  the 
ideality  of  the  law  by  making  the  end  of  the  forty- 
ninth  year  of  servitude  one  of  release  for  all  slaves  of 
Hebrew  race,  instead  of  the  end  of  the  sixth  for  each 
Hebrew-born  slave.  As  far  as  one  can  see,  this,  also, 
remained  a  mere  paper  law,  and  it  was  meaningless  in 
any  case  if  the  regulation  against  the  enslavement  of 
Hebrews  by  their  fellow-countrymen  was  observed. 
If,  on  the  other  hand,  it  was  made  applicable  to  He- 
brews held  in  bondage  by  foreigners  in  post-exilic 
times,  the  law  providing  for  the  redemption  2  of  such 
slaves  by  their  fellow-countrymen  was  unnecessary. 

It  is  to  be  noted,  further,  that  Deuteronomy  pro- 
vides for  the  voluntary  choice  of  permanent  slavery  3 
in  those  cases  where  a  slave  does  not  wish  to  leave  his 
master.  That  there  were  such,  speaks  well  for  some 
Hebrew  masters,  but  it  is  also  an  eloquent  comment 
upon  the  precariousness  of  existence  in  those  days.  Nor 
must  one  overlook  the  fact  that  there  was  a  fly  in 
the  ointment  of  this  humanitarianism.  An  unmarried 
slave  frequently  was  given  a  wife  of  foreign  origin  by 
his  master.  Neither  such  a  wife  nor  her  children  were 
subject  to  release  and  had  to  be  abandoned  by  the 
slave  who  elected  to  be  free.4  Under  these  circum- 
stances it  is  conceivable  that  other  emotions  than  those 
of  contentment  with  his  lot  may  have  led  him  to  prefer 
permanent  servitude. 

Slavery  being  an  integral  and  legally  recognized 

'Lev^iio       2    Lcv.25:47/.         3  Dt.  15:16/.        *  Ex.21:  2-6. 


224  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT 

institution  of  Hebrew  society,  it  is  not  surprising  to 
find  that  from  the  time  of  Solomon  onward  a  class 
of  foreign  slaves,  Nethinim,  was  employed  to  do  the 
menial  services  in  the  temple  at  Jerusalem.1  The  same 
practice,  doubtless,  prevailed  at  other  sanctuaries. 
These  temple  slaves  continued  in  service  after  the  Deu- 
teronomic  reformation.  They  were  prevailingly  of 
foreign  origin  and  not  subject  to  release.  A  Deutero- 
nomic  editor  of  the  Book  of  Joshua  placed  his  approval 
upon  Joshua's  enslavement  of  the  Gibeonites  in  the 
words,  "Cursed  be  ye,  and  for  all  future  time  shall  ye 
be  slaves  for  the  house  of  my  God."  2 

We  find,  therefore,  that  Deuteronomy  countenances 
slavery  in  the  name  of  Jahveh,  much  as  the  ear- 
lier codes  do,  but  attempts  to  mitigate  some  of  its 
abuses  in  practice.  It  is  conceivable  that  the  need 
of  more  definite  regulations  to  secure  humanitarian 
treatment  arose  out  of  the  changing  conditions  of 
slavery.  In  a  nomadic  or  half-nomadic  society,  gov- 
erned by  patriarchal  custom,  the  lot  of  the  slave  is  not 
a  hard  one.  The  necessities  of  an  agricultural  and  urban 
life  make  more  severe  demands,  and  greatly  increase 
the  hardships  of  slavery.  This  fact  has  been  overlooked 
by  many  writers  who  have  generalized  on  slavery  as 
practised  among  the  Israelites  by  means  of  illustra- 
tions derived  from  the  earlier  period. 

The  mitigations  of  severity  applied  almost  exclu- 

1  Josh.  9:3-27;  Ezek.  44:6/.;  Ezra  2:55  ff.;  8:20. 

2  Josh.  9: 23.   "  Hewers  of  wood  and  drawers  of  water"  is  a  late  gloss, 
both  in  this  verse  and  in  vs.  27. 


ETHICS  OF   DEUTERONOMY        225 

sively  to  Israelitish  slaves,  who  fell  into  their  condition 
through  debt,  and  who  probably  never  formed  a  large 
proportion  of  the  slave  population.  The  great  ma- 
jority were  of  alien  origin  and  these  received  little  con- 
sideration at  the  hands  of  the  Deuteronomists.  Ben- 
zinger  is  quite  within  the  historical  facts  when  he 
says;  "The  liberation  of  a  slave  of  alien  race  seems 
rarely  to  have  occurred;  no  instance  of  it  is  recorded 
anywhere,  and  the  old  regulations  regarding  release 
applied  only  to  slaves  of  Israelitish  race."  1  This  con- 
tinuing disposition  to  restrict  within  racial  limits  the 
range  of  moral  obligation  both  among  freedmen  and 
among  slaves,  is  an  important  datum  in  a  study  of  this 
stage  of  Hebrew  moral  development. 

It  is,  however,  to  be  noted  as  a  real  ethical  gain  that 
Deuteronomic  religion  sanctions  the  higher  moral 
aspirations  and  needs  of  an  advancing  society,  even 
though  it  confines  their  exercise  to  the  national  circle 
of  blood-kinship.  Within  the  families  and  clans,  at 
first,  are  bred  the  altruistic  virtues  whose  sphere  of 
exercise  is  later  enlarged  to  include  the  tribe,  and  ulti- 
mately the  nation.  The  next  step  must  be  the  exten- 
sion of  intertribal  morality  beyond  the  boundaries  of 
the  nation.  Evidence  looking  toward  the  emergence 
of  an  international  standard  of  morality  has  already 
been  furnished  by  Amos.  But  a  definite  basis  for  it, 
in  the  thought  of  a  God  who  is  more  than  a  national 
deity  and  does  not  confine  his  interest  to  Hebrews,  is 

1  Archceologie  (1907),  p.  124. 


226  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

provided  for  the  first  time  by  Jeremiah.  Deuteronomy 
still  is  narrowly  particularistic. 

This  particularism  shows  itself  most  strongly  in  the 
treatment  accorded  to  the  ger  and  the  foreigner.  The 
former  corresponds  to  the  Arabian  jar,1  a  kind  of  resi- 
dent alien.  In  the  English  versions  of  the  Bible  the 
Hebrew  term  is  translated  "stranger"  and  "so- 
journer," but  since  a  technical  meaning  attaches  to 
the  word  we  shall  render  it  more  exactly  if  we  speak 
of  a  client.  Men  outlawed  from  their  own  tribes  for 
murder,  incest,  or  other  reasons,  or  who  came  as 
traders,  or  fugitive  debtors,  customarily  sought  the 
protection  of  another  tribe  or  nation.  Occasionally  an 
entire  group  was  taken  into  dependent  alliance  with 
a  stronger  tribe  or  nation.  Such  a  relationship  con- 
ferred upon  clients  the  right  of  settlement  among  their 
protectors,  and  obligated  the  latter  to  exact  blood- 
revenge  for  any  outrage  committed  against  them.  It 
substantially  amounted  to  an  agreement  on  the  part  of 
patrons  to  make  the  clients'  quarrel  their  own.  This, 
of  course,  relates  chiefly  to  injuries  to  which  the  client 
might  be  subjected  from  without  the  group  into  which 
he  has  been  taken.  His  status  within  the  same  was 
another  matter. 

Inasmuch  as  the  Hammurabi  Code,  ages  before  the 
promulgation  of  Deuteronomy,   had  wiped  out  the 

1  Cf.  W.  R.  Smith,  Kinship  and  Marriage  in  Early  Arabia  (ed. 
1903),  p.  49/.,  for  an  excellent  account  of  the  clients,  or  protected  stran- 
gers; German,  Schutzburger,  or  Beisasse;  Greek,  Xenoi.  Among  the  He- 
brews, as  elsewhere,  the  pure-blooded  tribesman,  or  ezrdh,  was  clearly 
distinguished  from  the  glr,  the  slave  (,'ebed),  and  the  foreigner  (nokhri). 


ETHICS  OF   DEUTERONOMY       227 

distinction  before  the  law  between  natives  and  for- 
eigners, we  must  regard  the  retention  of  such  distinc- 
tions in  the  Hebrew  code,  as  evidence  of  a  society  less 
advanced  in  culture.  The  ger,  or  client,  did  enjoy  a 
large  measure  of  protection,  but  he  is  distinctly  a  per- 
son of  the  second  class  before  the  law.  This  appears 
clearly  in  one  of  the  food  taboos,1  and  in  the  repeated 
recommendation  of  charity  for  the  client,  along  with 
widows  and  orphans,  who  probably  could  sue  only 
through  a  patron.  Like  the  country  priests  whom  the 
Deuteronomic  law  of  centralization  deprived  of  their 
living,  he  is  treated  as  a  ward  of  the  community  and 
admitted  to  a  share  in  a  sort  of  voluntary  poor-rate 
instituted  by  Deuteronomy.2  Reiterated  warnings 
against  perverting  the  justice  due  to  the  client  are  also 
to  be  regarded  as  significant.3  The  right  of  intermar- 
riage was  denied  to  him,4  and  while  he  had  to  accom- 
modate himself  to  a  few  external  observances  of 
Israel's  religion  and  was  admitted  as  a  dependent  to 
the  sacrificial  feasts,  he  was  not  counted  a  full  member 
of  the  religious  community  by  the  Deuteronomist. 
Food  denied  to  an  Israelite  on  the  ground  of  its  ritual 
uncleanness,  and  commanded  to  be  thrown  to  the  dogs 
in  the  legislation  of  the  E  document,  may  on  the  au- 
thority of  Jahveh  be  given  to  the  client,  for  the  in- 
terest of  Israel's  God  is  limited  strictly  to  Israelites. 
"Ye  shall  not  eat  anything  that  dieth  of  itself,"  reads 

1  Dt.  14:21  ;  cf.  10: 18  ;  14:  29  ;  24:14,  19/. 

2  Dt.  26:11,  12.  3  Dt.  24:17  ;  27:19. 

*  Dt.  7:  iff-;  23:3. 


228  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

the  passage;  "thou  may  est  give  it  to  the  client  that  is 
within  thy  gates,  that  he  may  eat  it;  or  thou  mayest 
sell  it  to  a  foreigner:  for  thou  art  an  holy  people  to 
Jahveh,  thy  God."  *  The  Israelite,  being  the  particular 
object  of  the  deity's  regard,  is  bound  by  rigid  blood 
taboos,  which  he  must  carefully  observe  in  order  to  re- 
main acceptable  to  Jahveh. 

Elsewhere  Deuteronomy  characterizes  Jahveh  as 
a  great  God  who  shows  no  partiality  and  takes  no 
bribe;  who  secures  justice  to  the  orphan  and  the 
widow,  and  who  loves  the  client  in  that  he  provides 
him  with  food  and  raiment.2  Comparison  of  these  two 
passages  illustrates  the  danger  of  reading  into  parts  of 
the  Old  Testament  a  degree  of  morality  quite  beyond 
their  intention.  In  the  thought  of  the  Deuteronomist, 
Jahveh's  impartiality  apparently  suffers  no  impair- 
ment by  the  utterance  of  laws  which  make  justice 
obligatory  between  native  tribesmen,  but  dismiss  the 
client  with  a  recommendation  of  charity.  And  what 
significance  can  attach  to  his  assertion  of  Jahveh's  love 
for  the  client,  when  the  latter  is  excluded  from  full 
membership  in  the  religious  community,  and  may  on 
Jahveh's  authority  be  given  for  food  the  carcass  of  an 
animal  that  has  succumbed  to  disease?  This  permis- 
sion hardly  contemplates  anything  else  than  a  bargain 
made  with  deliberate  intention  to  deceive.  The  Israel- 
ites' Semitic  neighbors  undoubtedly  had  the  same 
superstitious  abhorrence  for  meat  of  that  kind,  and 

1  Dt.  14:21;  cf.  Ex.  22:31.  Observe  that  "  holy  "  has  only  a  ritual,  no 
moral,  significance  here.  See  pp.  176-7.  2  Dt.  10: 17,  18. 


ETHICS  OF   DEUTERONOMY        229 

would  not  be  induced,  without  deception,  to  take  it. 
It  was  on  the  same  principle  that  the  Israelites,  on  the 
eve  of  departure  from  Egypt,  were  directed  to  borrow 
from  the  Egyptians,  with  the  concealed  intention  of 
keeping  what  they  were  able  to  get.  Thus  Jacob,  de- 
ceiving his  blind  old  father,  filched  the  blessing  from 
Esau,  who  represented  the  Edomites,  Jahveh  being 
assumed  as  the  silent  partner  in  the  transaction,  inas- 
much as  he  does  not  withhold  the  blessing.  In  such 
cases,  despite  falsehood  and  deception,  Jahveh  es- 
pouses the  cause  of  the  Israelite  against  the  foreigner. 
The  above  considerations  warn  us  that  we  are  in 
Deuteronomy  still  dealing  with  a  rather  narrow 
group  morality  invested  with  divine  sanctions. 

Twenty  years  after  Deuteronomy  had  been  en- 
forced among  the  people  by  royal  edict,  Jeremiah 
comes  into  open  conflict  with  those  who  claim  to  be 
the  official  representatives  of  Deuteronomic  religion. 
His  great  temple  address  opens  with  the  warning  plea: 
"Amend  your  ways  and  your  doings!"  And  promi- 
nent among  the  "doings"  which  he  mentions  as  re- 
quiring amendment  is  that  of  the  oppression  of  the 
client  (ger).1  Since  Deuteronomy  does  not  mention 
definite  legal  rights  of  the  client,  is  there  a  difference 
of  opinion  between  Jeremiah  and  the  custodians  of  the 
law-book  as  to  what  constitutes  the  considerate  treat- 
ment prescribed  for  the  resident  alien,  or  is  he  appeal- 
ing to  an  unwritten  prophetic  standard  of  ethics  which 

1  Jer.  7:6. 


230  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

goes  beyond  Deuteronomy?  In  view  of  his  denuncia- 
tion of  the  "lying  pen  of  the  scribes,"  1  one  must  allow 
the  possibility  of  the  latter.  We  should  like  to  think 
that  he  disapproves  also  of  the  Deuteronomic  regula- 
tions that  deal  with  the  out-and-out  alien,  the  nokhri,2 
for  in  them  clan  morality  finds  especially  crass  expres- 
sion. Since  Jeremiah  does  flatly  deny  divine  sanction 
in  the  case  of  the  cultus,  it  seems  not  improbable  that 
he  may  have  denied  the  alleged  divine  sanctions  of 
other  backward  customs  also. 

Mere  group  morality  underlies  also  the  Deutero- 
nomic provision  that  Hebrew  creditors  shall  cancel  the 
obligations  of  their  Hebrew  debtors  at  the  end  of  every 
seven  years.  But  "of  a  foreigner,"  says  the  Deuter- 
onomic legislator,  "thou  mayest  exact  it,"  i.e.,  the 
debt.3  Disregarding  for  a  moment  the  distinction  made 
between  natives  and  foreigners  in  the  judicial  regula- 
tion of  their  affairs,  it  is  pertinent  to  observe  that  the 
Deuteronomist  appears  to  know  nothing  of  a  mercan- 
tile credit  system,  nor  of  wealth  employed  as  a  capi- 
tal for  investment,  —  commercial  utilities  with  which 
Babylonia  had  long  been  familiar.  His  regulations  pre- 
suppose a  population  of  agriculturists  and  herdsmen, 

1  Jer.  8:8,  9. 

2  Steuernagel,  Einleitung  (1912),  p.  199,  regards  as  later  additions  the 
few  passages  that  define  Israel's  relation  to  the  nokhri;  Dt.  14:21a; 
15 :  35  x7:  x5b;  23  :  20a-  The  reasons  do  not  seem  decisive  to  the  present 
writer.  Even  if  they  were  eliminated  as  post-exilic,  the  specification  of  a 
"brother"  and  "neighbor"  as  the  one  who  is  to  benefit  by  the  release 
and  no-interest  ordinances,  still  implies  the  same  discrimination  against 
the  foreigner. 

3  Dt.  15:1-3- 


ETHICS  OF   DEUTERONOMY        231 

who  in  the  matter  of  their  necessities  are  not  far  above 
the  plane  of  nomadism.  Hence  he  assumes  that  debt 
is  incurred  only  under  stress  of  poverty,  and  his  regu- 
lations are  designed  to  protect  the  poor  man  against 
the  rapacity  of  ancient  loan  sharks.1  Considering  that 
the  borrowing  probably  related  nearly  always  to  the 
satisfaction  of  immediate  necessities,  it  was  a  humane 
provision  to  prohibit  the  taking  of  interest,  a  provision 
from  the  benefits  of  which  the  foreigner,  however,  is 
again  expressly  excluded.2 

In  the  light  of  these  facts  it  will  be  clear  that  this 
prohibition  relates  to  a  practice  which  has  next  to 
nothing  in  common  with  what  we  now  understand  by 
legal  interest  paid  upon  loans.  It  relates  to  exces- 
sively usurious  exactions  commonly  made  by  creditors 
in  ancient  times.  Old  Babylonian  contracts  stipulate 
interest  at  thirty-three  and  one  third  and  forty  per 
cent.  In  Neo-Babylonian  times  it  usually  was  fixed 
at  twenty  per  cent.3  This  loan  system  was  a  fruitful 
means  of  recruiting  the  supply  of  slaves,  for  both  the 
debtor  and  his  family  could  be  sold  into  slavery  for 
non-payment.4 

Therefore,   the   exemption    of   Israelites    from    the 

1  Is.  5: 8;  Micah  2:2,  9;  3:1-3. 

2  Dt.  23: 19,  20.  The  old  law  of  E  (Ex.  22:25)  reads," If  thou  lend 
money  to  any  of  my  people  with  thee  that  is  poor,  thou  shalt  not  be  to 
him  as  a  [money]  lender  (nosheh)."  A  glossator,  leaning  on  Deuteronomy, 
added  "Ye shall  not  lay  upon  him  interest"  (neshekh),  thus  indicating 
that  the  taking  of  interest  always  meant  exorbitant  interest.  Two  pas- 
sages in  Ezekiel  corroborate  this  view:  Ezek.  [8: 17;  22: 12. 

*  Cf.  Meissner,  Beitraege  zum  altbabylonischen  Privatrecht,  10,  23. 

*  II  Kings  4:1;  Is.  50: 1. 


232  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

requirement  of  interest  upon  loans,  and  their  release 
from  debtor's  bondage  at  the  end  of  a  certain  period, 
are  not  to  be  regarded  as  charitable  concessions  be- 
yond the  demands  of  justice,  from  which  it  would 
be  no  special  grievance  to  be  excluded.  On  the  con- 
trary, they  were  nothing  less  than  checks  upon  out- 
rage, mitigations  of  injustice,  from  which  a  large  part 
of  the  population  was  excluded.  How  little  the  justice 
of  the  system  was  questioned  in  early  times  may  be 
seen  by  a  legend  told  about  Elisha.1  A  creditor  is 
about  to  wrest  from  a  prophet's  widow  her  two  sons 
to  be  sold  into  slavery  for  a  trifling  debt.  Elisha  then 
works  a  curious  miracle  to  pay  the  creditor,  who  was 
a  felon  from  our  ethical  point  of  view,  and  who  even 
by  the  humanitarian  standards  of  Deuteronomy,  had 
it  been  in  existence,  was  an  oppressor  of  the  widow 
and  the  orphan.  Such  a  miracle  as  this  would  have 
to  be  rejected  on  moral  grounds,  if  on  no  other. 

We  have  no  reason  to  think  that  the  client,  so  fre- 
quently mentioned  as  entitled  equally  with  widows 
and  orphans  to  considerate  treatment,  fared  any 
better  than  they.  His  prosperity  was  watched  with 
jealous  eyes,  and  his  possible  rise  to  a  degree  of  affluence 
in  which  he  might  lend  to  an  Israelite  instead  of  bor- 
rowing from  him  was  regarded  as  so  disastrous  a  re- 
versal of  the  normal  relationship  that  the  Deuteron- 
omist  includes  it  among  the  fearful  consequences 
of  disobedience  that  shall  overtake  the  nation  if  it 

1  II  Kings  4: 1-7. 


ETHICS  OF   DEUTERONOMY        233 

fails  to  observe  the  Deuteronomic  law.  "The  client 
that  is  in  the  midst  of  thee  shall  mount  up  above  thee 
higher  and  higher;  and  thou  shalt  come  down  lower 
and  lower.  He  shall  lend  to  thee,  and  thou  shalt  not 
lend  to  him :  he  shall  be  the  head  and  thou  shalt  be  the 
tail."  *  Evidently  a  no-interest  agreement  forms  no 
part  of  the  supposed  transaction.  This  case,  in  which 
a  reversal  of  fortune  is  imagined,  shows  that  the 
normal  status  of  the  client  was  one  of  economic  in- 
feriority. 

In  this  respect  the  client  apparently  is  on  the  same 
legal  footing  as  the  foreigner.  If  the  latter  contracts 
a  debt,  the  exorbitant  interest  charge  of  the  creditor 
is  binding  upon  him.  Though  he  has  paid  it  three 
times  over  in  the  payment  of  interest,  there  is  for  him 
no  seventh-year  release,  as  for  his  Israelite  neighbor. 
And  if  he  and  his  children  are  sold  into  slavery  by  the 
creditor,  there  is  for  him  no  release  from  bondage  until 
he  goes  "where  the  wicked  cease  from  troubling  .  .  . 
and  the  slave  is  free  from  his  master."  2 

One  may  properly  enquire  whether  this  discrimina- 
tion against  the  foreigner  was  ever  more  than  a  paper 
law,  like  the  Deuteronomic  command  to  exterminate 
the  Canaanites,  uttered  at  a  time  when  as  a  people 
they  were  no  longer  in  existence.  It  is  impossible  now 
to  ascertain  the  exact  facts.  But  in  all  likelihood  a 
good  many  aliens  had  found  their  way  into  Judah 
from  northern  Israel,  which  the  Assyrians  had  colo- 
1  Dt.  28:43,  44-  2  Job.  3: 17-19. 


234  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

nized  largely  with  settlers  brought  from  the  East. 
However  that  may  be,  the  ethical  status  of  Deuteron- 
ony  must,  in  any  case,  be  determined  by  the  express 
tenor  of  its  laws,  not  by  the  accidents  of  their  observ- 
ance. And  if  it  is  true  that  unrealized  aspirations  of 
benevolence  on  behalf  of  Israelites  remained  in  the 
book  as  a  permanent  urge  toward  a  higher  intertribal 
social  morality,  it  is  equally  true  that  the  written  em- 
bodiment of  its  legalized  injustice  toward  those  of  alien 
race  remained  to  cast  its  evil  influence  far  down  the 
centuries.  The  increasingly  fanatical  insistence  upon 
purity  of  race  as  a  correlate  to  purity  of  religion,  which 
characterized  post-exilic  Judaism,  received  its  initial 
impulse  from  Deuteronomy.  In  modern  times,  during 
the  long  struggle  for  the  abolition  of  slavery,  defenders 
of  this  inhuman  institution  drew  many  an  argument 
from  the  anti-alien  regulations  of  Deuteronomy  to 
prove  that  God  himself  had  ordained  distinctions  in 
denial  of  the  doctrine  that  all  men  are  created  free 
and  equal. 

Let  us  suppose  that  Deuteronomy's  racial  and  re- 
ligious exclusivism  was  the  by-product  of  a  justifiable 
reaction,  the  work  of  men  who  were  thinking  back  on 
old  mistakes.  The  friendly  absorption  of  large  masses 
of  the  native  Palestinian  population  by  the  incoming 
Israelites  was  held  responsible  for  the  corruptions 
of  religion.  The  remedy  which  the  Deuteronomists 
declare  God  prescribes  is  not  the  moral  discipline 
of  the  Israelite,  but  the  massacre  of  the  Canaanite. 


ETHICS  OF   DEUTERONOMY        235 

"Thou  shalt  consume  all  the  people  that  Jahveh 
thy  God  shall  deliver  unto  thee;  thine  eyes  shall  not 
pity  them."  *  "Of  the  cities  of  these  [Canaanite]  peoples 
thou  shalt  save  alive  nothing  that  breatheth;  but 
thou  shalt  utterly  destroy  them  .  .  .  that  they  teach 
you  not  to  do  after  all  their  abominations."  "Neither 
shalt  thou  make  marriages  with  them  .  .  .  for  they 
will  turn  away  thy  son  from  following  me."  2  In  order 
that  the  darling  boy  of  the  household  may  not  be  en- 
snared by  the  wiles  of  your  neighbor's  daughter,  go 
and  burn  down  your  neighbor's  house,  and  let  none 
of  his  household  escape.  That,  reduced  to  tangible 
form,  seems  to  be  the  ethical  principle  involved  in 
such  action. 

We  have  here  the  effect  of  the  national-god-idea 
upon  the  sense  of  moral  obligation  toward  those  out- 
side of  the  political-racial  group.  Psychologically  the 
Israelite  restriction  of  God's  love  and  interest  to  them- 
selves was  really  the  reflection  of  their  own  unmoral 
attitude  toward  non-Israelites.  A  domestic  God  is  the 
patron  of  a  domestic  morality.  Hence  the  naive  as- 
sumption that  deception,  oppression,  and  injury  are 
not  wrong  in  Jahveh's  eyes  if  a  foreigner  is  the  victim. 
There  are,  of  course,  individual  manifestations  of  a 
higher  morality,  and  Jeremiah  censures  those  who  act 
the  part  of  Jacob.3  But  the  general  assumption  is  that, 

1  Dt.  7:16. 

2  Dt.  20:16-18;  7:3-4.  According  to  Gen.  9:26  the  Canaanite  was 
destined  to  be  the  slave  of  the  Israelite. 

3  Jer.  9:4.     The  Hebrew  words  rendered  "will  utterly  supplant" 


236  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT 

beyond  the  pale  of  hospitality,  no  foreigner  has  any 
rights  which  an  Israelite  is  bound  to  respect. 

From  a  historical  point  of  view  this  is  more  or  less 
justifiable  as  a  transient  condition  in  a  developing  proc- 
ess. Seen  in  the  light  of  the  whole  course  of  develop- 
ment, Deuteronomy  takes  a  noble,  though  subordinate, 
place  in  the  advancing  moral  experience  of  Israel.  But 
to  teach  its  dual  standard  of  justice,  one  for  the  Is- 
raelite and  another  for  aliens,  as  the  "Word  of  God," 
is  an  affront  to  common  intelligence  and  unworthy 
of  the  Christian  idea  of  God. 

II 

The  disposition  to  insist  upon  purity  of  race  as  a  con- 
dition of  purity  of  religion  exhibits  some  curious  anoma- 
lies and  inconsistencies  with  respect  to  certain  aliens. 
The  Israelites  of  the  Deuteronomist's  time  are  com- 
manded not  to  "abhor"  Egyptians  and  Edomites.1 
It  is  stated  as  a  special  concession  in  their  case  that 
their  children  of  the  third  generation  may  become  rec- 
ognized members  of  the  Hebrew  religious  community. 
The  reason  given  for  favoring  the  Egyptians  —  that 
the  Israelites  once  upon  a  time  were  clients  in  Egypt  — ■ 
is  as  inconsequential  as  the  reason  for  excluding  Moab- 
ites  and  Ammonites.  It  is  clearly  a  case  of  reasons 
found  after  the  fact.  During  the  later  monarchy  there 

strongly  suggest  an  allusion  to  Gen.  27:36.     Cornill,   following   Erbt, 
renders  "iibt  Jacobstrug"  —  "practices  Jacob's  tricks."  Jeremiah  re- 
proves his  countrymen  for  practising  such  tricks  upon  each  other. 
1  Dt.  23:  7,  8. 


ETHICS  OF   DEUTERONOMY        237 

was  much  intercourse  with  Egypt,  and  Isaiah's  earnest 
warnings  against  political  alliance  with  that  country 
are  strong  evidence  of  friendly  feeling  at  the  royal 
court  and  among  the  people. 

In  the  case  of  Edomites,the  all-powerful  bond  of  blood 
kinship  is  urged  as  the  ground  of  preferential  treatment. 
At  the  time  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  the  feeling 
toward  them  changed  to  one  of  deep  hatred,  as  may  be 
seen  by  the  little  prophecy  of  Obadiah.1  Since  few 
pages  of  the  Old  Testament  are  more  vindictive  than 
those  which  paint  the  vengeance  that  is  to  be  wreaked 
upon  Edom,  it  is  pleasant  to  possess  this  Deuteronomic 
record  of  a  friendlier  period.  Indirectly,  the  case  of  the 
Egyptians  and  Edomites  furnishes  another  means  of 
gauging  the  anti-alien  feeling  of  Deuteronomy.  If  the 
Israelite  is  not  to  abhor  individuals  of  these  particular 
nationalities,  and  yet  their  descendants  may  not  be 
admitted  to  full  religious  standing  until  the  third 
generation,  what  chance  of  recognition  did  the  aver- 
age client  and  foreigner  have?  What  of  the  morality 
of  this  race  hatred?  Was  it  right  to  abhor  them  as 
foreigners? 

The  Deuteronomist  furnishes  an  instructive  example 
in  the  Ammonites  and  Moabites,  whom  he  singles  out 
for  special  reprobation.2  "Even  to  the  tenth  generation 

1  Cf.  Is.  34;  Mai.  1:3/. 

2  Dt.  23:3-6.  Bertholet  (Deuteronomium,  1899,  p.  71;  Stellung  d. 
Jsr.  zu  d.  Fremden,  pp.  142-45)  regards  Dt.  23  : 1-8  as  a  post -exilic  addi- 
tion. His  reasons  are  weighty  but  do  not  seem  to  me  decisive.  But  if  he 
is  right,  Ezra's  unscrupulousness  is  placed  in  a  very  bad  light,  and  the 
anti-alien  tendency  of  Deuteronomy  is  not  greatly  lessened.  One  might, 


238  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

shall  none  belonging  to  them  enter  into  the  assembly 
of  Jahveh  forever."  Strangely  enough  the  reason  given 
for  this  enactment  is  that  these  tribal  nationalities 
showed  hostility  toward  the  Israelites  when  they  "came 
forth  out  of  Egypt."  An  unfriendly  act  committed  by 
Ammonite  and  Moabite  ancestors  seven  centuries  be- 
fore is  given  as  the  reason  for  the  injunction:  "Thou 
shalt  not  seek  their  peace  nor  their  prosperity  all  thy 
days  forever."  No  single  passage  could  make  more 
strikingly  apparent  the  contrast  between  Deuteron- 
omy and  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  or  show  more  conclu- 
sively how  much  of  the  spirit  of  the  Mosaic  Law  he  nul- 
lified and  extinguished  when  he  summed  up  its  essence 
in  man's  duty  to  love  God  with  all  his  heart,  and  his 
neighbor,  in  the  sense  of  any  human  being,  as  himself. 
It  might  pertinently  be  pointed  out  that  Deuteron- 
omy for  the  first  time  legalizes  departure  from  the 
old  principle  of  group  responsibility,  in  providing  that 
"the  fathers  shall  not  be  put  to  death  for  the  children, 
nor  the  children  ...  for  the  fathers " ;  that  "every  man 
shall  be  put  to  death  for  his  own  sin."  *  Since  the 
Deuteronomist's  judgment  against  the  Ammonites 
and  Moabites  is  a  particularly  gross  case  of  visiting 
the  sins  of  the  fathers  upon  the  children,  not  merely 
to  the  third  or  fourth  remove,  but  to  endless  genera- 
tions, the  modern  reader  of  the  Bible  becomes  con- 
scious here  of  a  direct  contradiction  in  principle.   One 

indeed,  argue  that  Ezra  caused  the  insertion  in  Deuteronomy  of  anti- 
alien  regulations,  which  he  then  tried  to  enforce. 
1  Dt.  24:16. 


ETHICS  OF   DEUTERONOMY        239 

may  offer  in  explanation  of  the  fact:  (1)  that  the  Deu- 
teronomist  desires  to  abrogate  the  principle  of  group 
responsibility  only  in  specific  cases  where  capital  pun- 
ishment was  involved;  (2)  that  here,  as  in  numerous 
other  cases,  the  Deuteronomic  amelioration  of  ancient 
practice  is  intended  to  apply  only  to  Israelites;  (3)  that 
the  cause  of  exclusion  alleged  in  the  text  is  an  addition 
by  a  later  hand,  and  that  the  real  reason,  assumed,  but 
not  given  by  the  legislator,  is  the  supposed  incestuous 
origin  of  the  Moabites  and  Ammonites.1 

It  undoubtedly  is  true  that  the  Deuteronomists 
never  carry  the  principle  of  individual  responsibility 
beyond  concrete  cases  of  capital  punishment  in  which 
Israelites  are  involved.  They  never  attempt  such  far- 
reaching  applications  of  the  principle  as  are  later 
made  by  Ezekiel,  who  infers  that  if  in  human  courts 
the  fathers  cannot  be  justly  punished  for  the  sins  of 
the  children,  nor  the  children  for  those  of  the  parents, 
then  God  cannot  justly  follow  such  a  rule  in  the  in- 
fliction of  his  judgments.  The  old  idea  of  communal 
liability,  so  far  as  the  punishments  of  God  are  con- 
cerned, received  its  strongest  expression  in  the  re- 
markable twenty-eighth  chapter  of  Deuteronomy. 
There  it  is  never  the  individual,  but  always  the 
nation  that  is  the  subject  of  religion,  and  the  object 
of  divine  rewards  and  penalties.  Under  such  a  con- 
ception of  theodicy  it  is  very  natural  to  suppose 
that  when  a  calamity  overtakes  any  nation,  it  is  a 
1  Gen.  19:30/.;  cf.  Dt.  23:2. 


240  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

punishment  for  the  accumulated  guilt  of  previous 
generations.1 

Granting  that  the  third  explanation  is  the  most  sig- 
nificant, the  fact  remains  that  the  editor  who  fur- 
nished this  later  explanation  still  believed  without 
scruple  that  God  nurses  a  grudge  and  makes  its  satis- 
faction incumbent  upon  his  votaries  to  endless  genera- 
tions. But  equally  serious  moral  objections  must  be 
brought  against  the  view  which  bases  the  exclusion  of 
the  Moabites  and  Ammonites  upon  their  alleged  incest- 
uous origin.  The  story  told  in  Genesis  about  their 
descent  from  Lot  is  obviously  etymological,  a  legend 
spun  out  of  their  names,  and  informed  with  the  same 
race  hatred  that  speaks  in  Deuteronomy. 

If  the  story  was  believed  in  priestly  circles,  prevail- 
ing ideas  of  the  transmissibility  of  ritual  uncleanness 
arising  from  an  incestuous  union  may  have  led  to  the 
permanent  exclusion  of  the  above-mentioned  nation- 
alities. This  explanation  seems  the  more  plausible  be- 
cause the  command  of  exclusion  is  immediately  pre- 
ceded by  another  which  in  the  same  terms  bars  a 
mamzer  and  his  descendants  from  admission  "  into  the 
assembly  of  Jahveh."  2  The  exact  meaning  of  the  word 
is  uncertain,  but  the  translation  "bastard"  is  inexact 
if  "Rabbinical  tradition  is  right  in  supposing  the 
term  to  denote  not  generally  one  born  out  of  wedlock, 
but  the  offspring  of  an  incestuous  union,  or  of  a  mar- 
riage contracted  within  the  prohibited  degrees  of  af- 

1  Cf.   Gen.  15:16.  2  Dt.  23:2. 


ETHICS  OF   DEUTERONOMY       241 

finity."  *  We  seem,  then,  to  be  dealing  in  this  instance 
with  a  species  of  taboo  whose  moral  aspect  demands 
consideration. 

It  scarcely  is  necessary  to  observe,  even  to  the  strict- 
est defender  of  Biblical  traditionalism,  that  commands 
which  increase  the  miseries  and  degradation  of  inno- 
cent unfortunates,  can  have  no  valid  claim  to  emanate 
from  God,  whatever  theory  of  revelation  one  may 
hold.  The  idea  that  a  moral  stain  can  attach  to  men 
out  of  the  circumstances  of  their  birth  is  a  wicked 
superstition  which  has  done  the  more  harm  in  the  world 
because  it  was  provided  with  a  divine  sanction  in  the 
Old  Testament.  It  is  difficult  to  suppose  that  any  of 
the  great  prophets  who  preceded  Deuteronomy  would 
have  countenanced  prescriptions  like  these,  which 
encourage  that  invariably  disastrous  development 
within  a  religion  whereby  ritual  purity  is  substituted 
for  moral  purity  as  the  goal  of  man's  striving.  The 
prophets  held  that  acceptability  with  God  was  a  mat- 
ter of  conduct  and  character,  not  of  birth  and  taboos. 
This  fundamental  issue  was  at  the  very  core  of  Jere- 
miah's difficulties  with  the  defenders  of  Deuteronomy 
in  his  day. 

Closely  analogous  to  that  of  the  Ammonites  and 
Moabites  is  the  case  of  the  Amalekites.  The  Israelites 
were  charged  not  to  forget  to  "blot  out  the  remem- 
brance of  Amalek  from  under  heaven  "  because  of  what 

1  Driver,    Deuteronomy,  p.  260.    Cf.   Lev.    18: 6-20  ;  20: 10-21.    Cf. 
chapter  on  the  "Decalogue'  in  the  present  work,  p.  122. 


242  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

he  "did  unto  thee  by  the  way  as  ye  came  forth  out 
of  Egypt."  Responsibility  for  a  treacherous  act,  com- 
mitted centuries  before  and  not  otherwise  recorded  in 
the  Old  Testament,  was  thus,  under  the  prevailing 
ideal  of  tribal  solidarity,  fastened  upon  the  entire  na- 
tionality and  regarded  as  furnishing  justification  for 
a  feud  of  extermination  to  the  last  survivor.  Probably 
this  injunction  was  repeated  here  only  for  dramatic 
effect,  since  the  Amalekites  had  long  ceased  to  be  for- 
midable neighbors  of  the  Israelites.  As  Driver  remarks, 
"In  so  far  as  it  had  been  actually  carried  into  effect, 
the  Israelitish  reader  [of  Deuteronomy]  would  have  the 
satisfaction  of  feeling  that  it  was  a  point  on  which  his 
nation  had  not  failed  in  responding  to  the  duty  laid 
upon  it."  But  the  national  and  ethical  limitations  of 
an  idea  of  God  and  religion  that  could  still  advocate 
such  barbarism  as  a  religious  "  duty  "  must  not  be  over- 
looked. 

Historically  considered,  all  these  cases  fall  under  the 
notion  of  bequeathing  a  feud.  Among  the  last  things 
which  in  antiquity  rulers  enjoined  upon  their  succes- 
sors, and  fathers  upon  their  sons,  was  the  duty  of  set- 
tling accounts  with  hereditary  or  personal  enemies. 
David  on  his  death-bed  specifies  two  men  whose  hoar 
heads  Solomon  is  to ' '  bring  down  to  Sheol  with  blood . " l 
It  could  hardly  appear  an  inappropriate  representa- 

1  I  Kings  2 : 1-9.  While  the  section  is  Deuteronomic  and  cannot  be 
used  to  establish  the  historicity  of  the  incident  narrated,  it  indicates 
familiarity  with  the  idea  of  bequeathing  obligations  of  feud  and  of 
friendship. 


ETHICS   OF   DEUTERONOMY        243 

tion,  therefore,  that  Moses,  at  the  behest  of  Jahveh, 
had  left  directions  for  the  treatment  of  national  ene- 
mies. 

The  Deuteronomist  included  in  his  legislation  a 
unique  and  curious  regulation  which  is  undeniably  at 
variance  with  his  anti-alien  policy  and  regulations.  An 
Israelite  is  permitted  to  take  to  wife  any  beautiful 
female  captive  taken  in  war,  on  condition,  however, 
that  if  at  any  time  he  ceases  to  care  for  her,  he  must  not 
sell  her  as  a  slave,  but  permit  her  to  go  free.  Amid  the 
conditions  of  primeval  Semitic  culture  this  undoubt- 
edly was  a  humane  provision,  whose  observance  is 
attested  also  for  ancient  Arabia.  Since  Deuteronomy 
enjoins  the  utter  extermination  of  the  Canaanites,1 
and  expressly  prohibits  intermarriage  with  them,  we 
have  here  an  instance  in  which,  as  Bertholet2  re- 
marks, ancient  custom  was  stronger  than  the  will  of 
the  law-giver.  The  month  of  mourning  taboo  imposed 
for  the  captive's  parents,  who  are  assumed  to  have 
been  slain  under  the  ban,  is  less  a  humane  concession 
to  her  than  it  is  a  precaution  for  her  captor.   This  is 

1  The  point  made  in  some  commentaries  that  the  regulation  refers 
to  female  captives  taken  in  wars  subsequent  to  the  conquest  of  Palestine 
seems  to  the  present  writer  artificial.  The  Deuteronomist  is,  as  a  matter 
of  course,  writing  at  a  time  when  the  Canaanites  as  such  had  disap- 
peared, so  that  as  far  as  his  intention  is  concerned  it  applies  to  any  female 
captives  taken  in  war:  cf.  Dt.  20: 13,  where  only  the  males  of  non- 
Canaanite  cities  are  to  be  massacred.  It  is  easier  to  account  for  the  dis- 
crepancy between  chapters  7  and  21  by  assuming  that  they  came  from 
different  hands,  and  that  the  writer  of  chapter  21  intended  to  account 
for  the  numerous  marriages  with  Canaanite  women,  known  to  Hebrew 
tradition. 

2  Dcuteronomium  (1899),  p.  66. 


244  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

clearly  seen  in  the  shaving  of  the  head  and  paring  of  the 
nails,  wide-spread  ancient  cathartic  rites  for  warding 
off  dangers  arising  from  the  spirits  of  the  dead. 

Before  dismissing  this  matter  of  anti-alien  Deu- 
teronomic  exclusivism  and  vendetta,  it  is  proper  to 
indicate  some  of  its  evil  consequences  within  the  Old 
Testament  period.  Although  the  writer  of  the  Book 
of  Ruth  pointed  out  that  David's  great-grandmother 
was  a  Moabitess,  a  fact  which,  according  to  Deu- 
teronomic  law,  would  have  excluded  him  and  his  de- 
scendants from  "the  assembly  of  Jahveh,"  and  al- 
though a  prophetic  reaction  against  this  exclusivism  is 
discernible  in  Deutero-Isaiah  and  the  Book  of  Jonah, 
anti-alien  feeling  became  more  and  more  accentu- 
ated in  priestly  circles  until  it  reached  its  climax  under 
Ezra  and  Nehemiah.1  An  earnest  protest  should  be 
entered  against  the  widespread  habit,  in  theological 
literature,  of  excusing  this  exclusivism  on  the  ground 
that  it  was  necessary  to  preserve  the  identity  of  Juda- 
ism. This  assumes  that  the  religion  of  Deutero-Isaiah 
and  kindred  spirits  did  not  have  the  vitality  to  survive. 
Why  should  the  most  glaring  defects  of  a  certain  stage 
of  religious  development  be  treated  as  a  necessary  evil 
without  which  subsequent  good  could  not  have  been 
achieved?  Christian  apologists  who  adopt  a  line  of 
defence  by  which  the  survival-values  of  a  religion  are 
assumed  to  reside  in  its  lower,  rather  than  in  its  higher, 

1  Cf.  Neh.  13: 1-3,  where  the  Deuteronomic  law  is  quoted  and  acted 
upon.  Cf.  also  Neh.  13:23-27. 


ETHICS  OF   DEUTERONOMY        245 

qualities,  attempt  to  do  their  fighting  after  the  arti- 
cles of  capitulation  have  been  signed. 

in 

At  a  number  of  points  Deuteronomy  sanctions  de- 
partures from  earlier  law  and  custom,  thereby  soften- 
ing their  rudeness  and  placing  the  approval  of  religion 
upon  the  gradual  conquest  of  civilization  over  bar- 
barism. A  common  exploit  of  Israelitic  as  of  Arabic 
warfare  was  the  destruction  of  an  enemy's  palm  groves, 
the  stopping  of  fountains,  and  ruining  of  tilled  fields. 
Elisha  commanded  this  to  be  done  in  a  campaign 
against  Moab.1  But  the  Deuteronomist  forbids  such 
wanton  destruction  as  far  as  fruit-trees  are  concerned.2 
The  motive  assigned,  however,  is  the  utilitarian  one 
that  the  Israelite  may  eat  of  them. 

There  is  a  change  in  the  law  of  seduction.  The 
seducer  must  pay  the  father  of  the  girl  what  was  prob- 
ably the  usual  purchase  price,  fifty  shekels  of  silver, 
and  take  her  as  his  wife.  He  is  punished  by  being  de- 
prived of  the  right  ever  to  divorce  her.  The  legislator 
does  not  raise  the  question  whether  the  seducer  has 
one  or  several  wives  already  under  the  current  prac- 
tice of  polygamy.  In  fact,  denial  of  the  right  to  di- 
vorce the  woman  in  question  would  have  been  a  hard- 
ship only  in  those  cases  in  which  a  man  did  not  have 
sufficient  means  to  keep  more  than  the  customary  two 
wives.   While  this  regulation  probably  placed  a  slight 

1  Cf.  II  Kings,  3:19,  25.  2  Dt.  20:19. 


246  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

hindrance  in  the  way  of  such  outrages,  there  is  no  deny- 
ing of  the  fact  that  it  constituted  but  a  very  slight 
check  upon  what  from  the  modern  point  of  view  was 
utter  barbarism.  The  legislator  assumes  without 
scruple  that  divorce  is  something  which  men  exercise 
as  an  inherent  right  and  privilege  rather  than  as  an 
emergency  measure. 

It  must  be  remembered  that  women,  in  all  the  regu- 
lations affecting  them,  are  treated  as  property.  Even 
the  exceptions  prove  this,  for  on  no  other  assumption 
could  the  old  prohibition  have  been  laid  upon  the  hus- 
band-master not  to  sell  either  wives  or  concubines. 
But  both  were  inheritable  property.1  The  eldest  son 
not  infrequently  tried  to  enter  upon  this  part  of  his 
inheritance  during  his  father's  lifetime.2  Absalom  pro- 
claims himself  the  heir  and  successor  of  his  father 
David  by  publicly  taking  possession  of  his  harem.3 

1  This  was  old  Arabic  practice  also.  The  heir  had  the  right  to  sell  her 
again  as  a  wife  for  a  mahr  paid  to  himself.  The  Koran  (4,  23)  forbids  men 
to  "inherit  women  against  their  will";  it  also  forbids  them  (vs.  26)  to  have 
their  stepmothers  in  marriage  "except  what  has  passed";  i.e.,  existing 
unions  of  that  kind  are  not  cancelled,  but  from  that  time  on,  the  custom 
is  to  be  considered  abrogated.  For  further  details  consult  W.  R.  Smith, 
Kinship  and  Marriage  (ed.  1903),  p.  104/.  Tabari's  commentary  on  the 
Koran  contains  the  following  illustration  of  the  custom  referred  to  in  the 
above  passages.  " '  In  the  Jahiliya,  when  a  man's  father  or  brother  or  son 
died  and  left  a  widow,  the  dead  man's  heir,  if  he  came  at  once  and  threw 
■his  garment  over  her,  had  the  right  to  marry  her  under  the  dowry  (mahr) 
of  [i.e.,  already  paid  by]  her  [deceased]  lord  (sahib),  or  to  give  her  in  mar- 
riage and  take  her  dowry.  But  if  she  anticipated  him  and  went  off  to  her 
own  people,  then  the  disposal  of  her  hand  belonged  to  herself.'  The  sym- 
bolical act  here  spoken  of  is  the  same  that  we  find  in  the  Book  of  Ruth 
(3:9).  where  the  young  widow  asks  her  husband's  kinsman  Boaz  'to 
spread  his  skirt  over  his  handmaid,'  and  so  claim  her  as  his  wife."  (Trans, 
by  W.  R.  S.) 

8  Gen.  35:22.  3  II  Sam.  16:20-22. 


ETHICS  OF   DEUTERONOMY        247 

Solomon  treats  Adonijah's  request  for  Abishag  of 
Shunem  as  an  attempt  to  supplant  him  upon  the 
throne.1  His  suspicions  are  aroused  the  more  readily 
because  Adonijah,  as  the  eldest,  is  really  entitled  to  the 
succession  and  to  David's  harem. 

By  elevating  Solomon  to  the  kingship,  David  had 
done  the  very  thing  which  Deuteronomy  forbade  in 
providing  that  a  father,  having  supposedly  two  wives, 
shall  not,  "when  he  causeth  his  sons  to  inherit  that 
which  he  hath,"  "  make  the  son  of  the  beloved  the  first- 
born before  the  son  of  the  hated,  who  is  the  first-born."2 
The  ancient  custom  which  Deuteronomy  here  legalizes 
still  reflects  the  primitive  belief  that  certain  God-given 
rights  and  mysterious  qualities  are  inherent  in  primo- 
geniture. The  question  may  properly  be  raised  whether 
the  first-born's  claim  to  a  double  share  of  the  inheritance 
may  not  originally  have  been  founded  in  his  duty  to 
maintain  his  father's  harem  and  the  continuity  of  the 
family  cult.  The  obligation  to  cherish  parents  secured 
to  the  mother  of  the  first-born  a  share  in  whatever 
material  benefits  might  accrue  to  him. 

In  the  polygamous  Israelitish  household  the  relation 
of  the  eldest  son  to  his  father's  wives  and  concubines, 
except  his  own  mother,  was  that  of  a  stepson  to  step- 
mothers. Deuteronomy  attacks  this  barbarous  old 
custom  of  marital  intercourse  between  stepsons  and 

1  I  Kings  2:22;  cf.  also,  II  Sam.  3:  7. 

2  Dt.  21:15-17;  cf.  I  Kings,  1.  Rivalries  within  the  harem  were  so 
common  that  the  feminine  form  of  the  Hebrew  word  for  enemy  (sarah) 
became  the  technical  designation  of  a  rival  wife  in  several  Semitic  dia- 
lects. 


248  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT 

stepmothers  by  placing  a  taboo  upon  such  marriages 
by  inheritance.1  Sixteen  centuries  earlier,  the  Ham- 
murabi Code,  under  domestic  regulations,  had  pro- 
vided banishment  for  a  son  who,  after  the  death  of  his 
father,  was  caught  flagrante  delicto  with  his  stepmother. 
But  among  the  Israelites  this  practice  had  such  weight 
of  ancient  tradition  behind  it,  and  was  so  deeply  rooted 
in  the  property  rights  of  the  time,  that  Ezekiel  still 
complains  of  the  occurrence  of  such  marriages.2  In- 
cidentally it  may  be  noted  that  Deuteronomy  lays  a 
curse  upon  marriage  with  a  half-sister  and  with  a 
mother-in-law.3  Under  the  first  head  falls  the  marriage 
of  Abraham  and  Sarah  which  the  early  documents  re- 
garded as  unobjectionable.4 

While  distinctly  in  the  interest  of  a  higher  sex  moral- 
ity, the  abolition  of  marriage  between  stepsons  and 
stepmothers  must  have  simultaneously  deprived  the 
latter  of  that  maintenance  which  as  wives  by  inheri- 
tance they  had  reason  to  expect  from  the  former.  This 
would  be  an  instance  in  which  the  progress  of  civiliza- 
tion removed  from  woman  the  relative  advantages  of 
a  dependent  condition  without  compensatory  better- 
ment of  her  legal  status.  There  is  such  a  thing  as  be- 
coming the  victim  of  an  advance  in  morality.  The 
widows,  deprived  of  marital  rights,  became  dependent 
upon  the  generosity  of  their  husbands'  heirs.  In  a 
Semitic  oriental  environment,  where  a  woman's  life  was 

1  Dt.  22:30;  27:20.  2  Ezek.  22:10.  3  Dt.  27:22,  23. 

«  Gen.  12:13  (J);  20:12  (E);cf.  II  Sam.  13:13. 


ETHICS  OF   DEUTERONOMY       249 

an  unenviable  one  at  best,  charity  was  a  precarious 
resource.  When  the  hope  of  remarriage,  or  of  return 
to  her  father's  family  was  gone,  the  widow's  lot  was 
pitiable  indeed.  The  Deuteronomist  was  quite  aware 
of  this  fact  and  his  sympathy  for  her  finds  expression 
in  appeals,  on  her  behalf,  to  the  fear  of  God's  justice,1 
and  in  the  curse  which  is  to  light  upon  her  oppressor.2 
Her  raiment  is  not  to  be  taken  in  pledge,3  the  gleanings 
of  the  grain-fields,  olive-yards,  and  vineyards  are  to  be 
hers,  and  she  is  to  be  freely  invited  to  share  in  the  sac- 
rificial feasts.4  The  status  of  fatherless  children  was 
practically  identical  with  that  of  widows;  they  are  al- 
most always  mentioned  together. 

It  will  at  once  occur  to  a  student  of  these  conditions 
that  the  case  of  widows  and  orphans  called  for  remedial 
legislation,  not  recommendations  to  charity.  Isaiah 
and  Micah  had  championed  their  cause  with  the  ut- 
most vigor.5  But  neither  their  denunciations  nor  their 
pleas  seem  to  have  been  of  any  avail.  Jeremiah's 
temple  address  shows  that  the  humane  recommenda- 
tions of  Deuteronomy  apparently  were  being  flouted 
by  the  very  ones  who  sought  to  justify  themselves  by 
appealing  to  the  Deuteronomic  law.6 

The  force  of  age-long  social  custom  may  be  seen  in 
this  otherwise  remarkable  fact  that  the  Deuterono- 
mist, who  did  not  hesitate  to  make  radical  changes  in 
the  cultus,  did  not  venture  to  give  widows  the  right  of 

1  Dt.  10:18.  2  Dt.  27:19.  3  Dt.  24:17. 

4  Dt.  26:12,  13;  16:11,  14;  14:29. 

6  Is.  1:17;  10:2;  Micah  2:9.  8  Jcr.  7:6;  cf.  8:8,  9. 


250  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT 

inheritance,  or  even  a  definite  legal  claim  upon  the 
property  of  their  husbands.  Interesting  light  is  thrown 
upon  the  status  of  the  Hebrew  widow  by  reference  to 
the  customs  of  the  ancient  Arabs.  Among  them,  also, 
the  widow  of  the  deceased  was,  as  wife,  a  part  of  her 
husband's  estate,  and  therefore  was  deemed  incapable 
of  inheriting  or  holding  property.  When  Mohammed 
introduced  the  new  rule  which  gave  a  share  of  inheri- 
tance to  a  sister  or  daughter,  the  men  of  Medina  pro- 
tested on  the  ground  that  none  should  inherit  save 
warriors.  W.  Robertson  Smith  further  cites  the  story 
of  Cais  ibn  Al-Khatim  to  show  how  impossible  it  was 
for  women  to  hold  property  among  the  Medina  Arabs. 
When  Cais  goes  out  to  avenge  his  father's  death,  he 
provides  for  his  mother,  in  the  event  of  his  own  death, 
by  giving  a  palm-garden  to  one  of  his  kinsmen  on  con- 
dition that  he  is  to  "nourish  this  old  woman  from  it 
all  her  life."  1  These  instances  show  the  sort  of  cus- 
toms on  which  Deuteronomic  legislators  may  have 
relied  in  contenting  themselves  with  recommendations 
of  charity  on  behalf  of  widows  and  orphans.  Later 
Judaism  at  last  gave  widows  some  legal  claim  upon  the 
property  of  their  deceased  husbands.  In  the  more  ad- 
vanced society  of  Babylonia  this  had  been  done  two 
thousand  years  earlier,  as  shown  by  the  Code  of  Ham- 
murabi. 

If  the  penalties  of  criminal  law  have  in  all  ages  and 

1  For  these  and  other  data  consult  W.  R.  Smith,  Kinship  and  Mar- 
riage, p.  117.  Mohammed's  rule  providing  inheritance  for  women  is 
found  in  the  Koran,  Sura  4:126. 


ETHICS  OF   DEUTERONOMY        251 

among  all  peoples,  as  Westermarck  maintains,  sub- 
stantially expressed  the  amount  of  public  indignation 
aroused  by  an  act,  we  may  employ  the  judicial  sen- 
tences imposed  by  the  Deuteronomist,  also,  to  obtain  a 
deeper  insight  into  the  quality  of  his  social  ethics.  Be- 
sides the  case  of  a  man  who  kidnaps  a  Hebrew  for  the 
purpose  of  selling  him  into  slavery,  Deuteronomy  im- 
poses the  death  penalty  in  five  instances.  A  man 
caught  in  adultery  with  a  married  woman  is  to  be  put 
to  death  with  her.  The  same  penalty  is  imposed  if  the 
woman  was  a  virgin  betrothed,  one  for  whom  the  pur- 
chase money  had  already  been  paid.  If  the  offence  was 
committed  in  the  city,  both  were  to  be  executed;  but  if 
it  occurred  in  the  country,  the  man  only,  on  the  as- 
sumption that  he  had  used  force.  Misconduct  with  a 
concubine  was  not  a  serious  offence. 

Murder  of  Hebrews  continued  to  be  punishable  with 
death;  but  the  killing  of  slaves  was  not  considered 
murder.  Since  the  Deuteronomist  does  not  specify 
any  modification  of  the  earlier  law  it  is  to  be  assumed 
that  it  continued  in  force.  If  the  master  killed  his  own 
slave  he  was  considered  sufficiently  punished  by  the 
property  loss,  and  if  he  killed  the  slave  of  another  he 
merely  paid  an  indemnity  of  thirty  shekels,  which  was 
probably  the  average  purchase  price  of  a  slave.  In  the 
case  of  freemen,  however,  the  Deuteronomist  distin- 
guishes at  some  length  between  intentional  and  unin- 
tentional murder.1   In  the  latter  case  the  offender  was 

1  Dt.  19:4-10. 


252  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT 

to  find  refuge  from  the  blood  avenger  in  one  of  certain 
specified  cities.  That  the  legislator  still  recognizes 
the  right  of  private  revenge  is  striking  evidence  of  the 
looseness  of  the  state's  judicial  control  and  of  the 
primitive  manner  in  which  justice  was  administered 
in  murder  cases.  It  amounts  to  a  conditional  sanction 
of  murder. 

The  strong  social  emphasis  which  was  laid  upon 
obedience  to  parental  authority  finds  expression  in  the 
imposition  of  the  death  penalty  upon  an  intractable 
son.  The  accusation  had  to  be  made  by  the  parents 
before  the  natural  sheiks,  or  elders,  of  the  city,  and  the 
execution  by  stoning  was  to  be  carried  out  by  ' '  all  the 
men  of  his  city."  1 

Quite  characteristic  of  priestly  tendencies  in  Deu- 
teronomy is  the  pronouncement  of  a  sentence  of  death 
upon  "the  man  that  doeth  presumptuously  in  not 
hearkening  unto  the  priest  that  standeth  to  minister 
there  [in  Jerusalem]  before  Jahveh  thy  God."  2  This 
mode  of  enforcing  priestly  decisions  certainly  was  not 
prompted  by  any  sense  of  public  indignation.  It  is 
sacerdotal  in  origin  and  springs  from  the  disposition 
to  concentrate  civil  and  religious  authority  within  the 
Jerusalemite  priesthood.  We  are  here  at  the  origin  of 
that  priestly  despotism  which  began  to  assert  itself 
against  Jeremiah  and  proved  so  fateful  to  the  later 
religion  of  Judaism. 

Finally,   Deuteronomy  imposes  the  death  penalty 

1  Dt.  21:18-21.  2  Dt.  17:12. 


ETHICS  OF   DEUTERONOMY        253 

upon  Israelites  for  idolatry,1  a  fact  which  affords  evi- 
dence of  the  intensity  of  the  nationalistic  reaction 
within  priestly-prophetical  circles  against  foreign  cults. 
The  mere  solicitation  to  idolatry,  though  it  comes  from 
brother,  son,  daughter,  wife,  or  dearest  friend,  is  to  be 
instantly  and  ruthlessly  resented  with  death.2  Not 
only  are  individuals  caught  in  the  act  of  worshipping 
other  gods  to  be  put  to  death  upon  the  testimony  of 
two  or  three  witnesses,  but  the  inhabitants  of  entire 
Israelite  cities  that  have  lapsed  into  idolatry  are  to  be 
massacred  until  not  a  man,  woman,  child,  or  animal 
remains.3  In  other  words,  they  are  to  be  placed  under 
a  religious  ban  of  complete  destruction.  The  massacre 
completed,  says  the  legislator,  "thou  shalt  burn  the 
city  and  all  its  spoil  as  a  whole-offering  to  Jahveh." 
This  atrocious  barbarity  was  to  the  Deuteronomist  a 
solemn  religious  duty  whose  performance,  he  hoped, 
might  cause  Jahveh  to  "turn  from  the  fierceness  of  his 
anger."  The  act  of  providing  this  extreme  fanaticism 
with  a  legal  basis  by  the  incorporation  of  these  manda- 
tory ordinances  into  the  civil-religious  law-book  of  the 
realm  became  productive  of  serious  ethical  conse- 
quences to  the  religion  of  Israel.  The  earlier  code  had 
provided  death  penalties  for  witchcraft  and  for  the  act 
of  sacrificing  to  another  god.4  But  it  probably  never 
was  more  than  a  priestly  torah.  Now  the  savage  zeal 
of  an  Elijah  or  Jehu  in  dealing  with  Tyrian  Baalism  is 

1  Dt.  17:2-7.  2  Dt.  13:6-11. 

3  Dt.  13: 12-18.  4  Ex.  22: 18,  20. 


254  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

made  obligatory  by  state  law  in  dealing  with  all  forms 
of  idolatry. 

The  very  possession  of  such  laws,  whether  enacted 
for  practical  or  merely  dramatic  purposes,  was  a  serious 
handicap  to  Israel's  higher  moral  development.  The 
thought  of  Jahveh's  love  for  his  people  and  the  require- 
ment of  such  vindictive  appeasement  of  his  anger, 
supposedly  aroused  by  ceremonial  acts  of  disloyalty, 
must  have  been  difficult  to  reconcile  even  in  those  days 
of  elemental  passions.  But  the  most  serious  aspect  of 
the  matter  lies  in  the  fact  that  it  introduced  and  legal- 
ized a  false  standard  for  determining  the  gravity  of 
sins.  If  for  the  idolator  no  less,  but  rather  more,  than 
for  the  murderer,  death  was  the  only  befitting  sentence 
in  the  eyes  of  God,  then  acts  of  ceremonial  worship 
acquired  in  the  eyes  of  the  people  an  importance  out 
of  all  proportion  to  the  practice  of  social  morality. 
This  inference  was  made  the  more  inevitable  because 
the  Deuteronomist  included  under  idolatry  not  only 
the  service  of  other  gods,  but  also  the  worship  of 
Jahveh  by  rites  which  were  traced  to  Canaanite  origin. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  they  were  not  all  characteristically 
Canaanite,  any  more  than  they  were  characteristically 
Hebraic.  They  were  a  part  of  the  primitive  Semitism 
from  which  both  forms  of  worship  arose.  Neither  were 
they  all  foul  and  immoral ;  some,  apart  from  their  asso- 
ciations, had  no  moral  significance  at  all.  In  post- 
Deuteronomic  times  all  worship  of  Jahveh  outside  of 
Jerusalem  was  held  to  have  been  idolatrous,  and  the 


ETHICS  OF   DEUTERONOMY        255 

unanimity  with  which  later  writers  ascribe  the  political 
misfortunes  of  the  nation  to  this  illegitimate  worship 
at  the  country  sanctuaries  reveals  the  profound  im- 
pression which  Deuteronomy  made  with  its  conception 
of  a  God  to  whom  idolatry  is  the  worst  of  all  sins. 

In  this  rating  of  ritual  above  moral  values  Deuteron- 
omy takes  a  retrograde  step.  The  great  prophets  of  the 
eighth  century  had  specified  justice,  kindness,  honesty, 
and  truthfulness  as  Jahveh's  supreme  requirements,  and 
their  opposites  were  the  leading  objects  of  his  resent- 
ment. With  them,  as  with  Jesus  and  the  great  major- 
ity of  thoughtful  religious  people  to-day,  the  output  of 
religion  was  in  a  life,  not  in  a  system  of  ritual  doctrine. 
The  prophets  no  less  than  the  Deuteronomists  desired 
that  Israel  should  be  a  holy  people.  But  there  was  un- 
deniably more  difference  than  resemblance  between 
their  respective  conceptions  of  what  constituted  holi- 
ness. Isaiah  at  least  had  clearly  lifted  the  idea  of 
holiness  into  the  moral  sphere.  To  seek  justice,  to 
relieve  the  oppressed,  to  judge  the  fatherless,  to  plead 
for  the  widow  —  that  was  the  way  to  acquire  holiness! 
The  Deuteronomist  conditions  the  acquisition  and 
preservation  of  holiness  upon  the  observance  of  a  large 
number  of  taboos  relating  to  food,  funerary  rites,  con- 
tact with  the  dead,  matters  of  sex,  and  of  war.  Viola- 
tion of  these  taboos  was  believed  to  communicate  a 
kind  of  pollution  that  was  physically  transmissible. 
It  inhered  in  things  as  well  as  persons  and  was  asso- 
ciated with  magical  powers  and  demonic  influences. 


256  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

How  utterly  physical  and  concrete  the  Deuterono- 
mist's  idea  of  holiness,  and  Jahveh's  relation  to  it,  was, 
may  be  gathered  from  his  prescriptions  for  preserving 
the  ritual  purity  of  a  military  camp.  "  For  Jahveh  thy 
God,"  he  says,  "walketh  in  the  midst  of  thy  camp,  to 
deliver  thee,  and  to  give  up  thine  enemies  before  thee; 
therefore  shall  thy  camp  be  holy,  that  he  may  not  see 
anything  ritually  objectionable  in  thee  and  turn  away 
from  thee."  1 

The  important  point  in  this  analysis  is  that  Deuter- 
onomy reintroduces  an  inextricable  mixture  of  ethics 
and  magic,  of  spiritual  and  physical,  into  the  notion  of 
holiness.  The  interests  of  the  priest  begin  to  over- 
whelm those  of  the  prophet.  That  is  why  Deuteron- 
omy regards  idolatry  and  everything  connected  with 
alien  rites  and  customs  as  a  physical  rather  than  a 
spiritual  offence  to  the  deity.  They  are  sources  of 
material  contagion  to  land  and  people,  which  must  be 
checked  by  fire  and  death. 

To  the  Deuteronomist  all  foreign  peoples  were  idola- 
tors,  —  an  erroneous  assumption.  The  evil  conse- 
quences of  idolatry,  he  believed,  sprang  from  its  pol- 
luting qualities,  an  idea  which  no  longer  exists  for  us, 
except  in  the  realm  of  superstition.  That  there  could 
be  anything  good  in  another  religion,  or  God  be  wor- 
shipped without  a  name,  or  under  any  other  name  than 
Jahveh,  would,  with  his  understanding  of  the  character 
of  heathenism,  have  been  inconceivable.  To  him  such 

1  Dt.  23:9-14. 


ETHICS   OF   DEUTERONOMY       257 

ideas  and  worship  were  idolatrous.  This  view  is  at  the 
opposite  pole  from  the  one  expressed  by  Paul  in  his 
address  at  Athens,  that  mankind  is  a  unity  under  God, 
and  that  all  the  various  religions  of  the  world  consti- 
tute a  manifold  but  real  search  after  Him.  Though 
the  Deuteronomist  sets  forth  Jahveh's  supremacy  over 
the  whole  earth,  it  does  not  occur  to  him  that  other 
nations  have  a  claim  upon  Jahveh's  care,  or  that  a  duty 
devolves  upon  Jahveh's  people  to  spread  his  knowledge 
beyond  the  borders  of  Israel.  This  idea  had  to  await 
the  coming  of  the  Great  Unknown  who  commonly 
passes  under  the  name  of  Deutero-Isaiah. 


CHAPTER   IX 

THE  FIRST   GREAT   HERETIC 

Jeremiah  of  Anathoth 

It  is  with  satisfaction  that  one  turns  from  Deuteron- 
omy to  Jeremiah,  who  takes  more  advanced  ground, 
both  explicitly  and  implicitly.  Unlike  his  contempo- 
rary Ezekiel  he  was  not  a  member  of  the  Jerusalem 
priesthood,  but  hailed  from  Anathoth,  a  little  com- 
munity of  priests  situated  five  miles  northeast  of 
Jerusalem  in  the  tribal  territory  of  Benjamin.  Thither 
Solomon  had  banished  Abiathar,  the  last  survivor  of 
the  once  famous  priesthood  of  Shiloh.  Since  it  is 
through  Jeremiah  alone  that  we  learn  of  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  sanctuary  and  community  of  Shiloh  by 
some  undescribed  awful  calamity,  a  romantic  interest 
attaches  to  the  possibility  that  he  may  have  been  a 
descendant  of  Abiathar. 

If  there  was  a  shrine  at  Anathoth  it  must  have 
suffered  the  same  fate  of  abolition  as  all  others  at  the 
time  of  Josiah's  reformation,  and  Jeremiah's  family 
would  then  have  been  among  those  for  whom  Deuter- 
onomy provided  compensatory  maintenance  and  the 
right  to  "minister  in  the  name  of  Jahveh"  at  Jerusa- 
lem. Being  people  of  property,  however,  they  appear 
not  to  have  exercised  the  right  of  maintenance. 

That  Jeremiah  and  his  family  were  possessed  of 


THE   FIRST  GREAT   HERETIC      259 

means  is  indicated  by  a  number  of  circumstances.  He 
is  able  to  afford  the  services  of  an  able  amanuensis  like 
Baruch.  He  exercises  the  privilege  of  a  kinsman  to 
keep  the  family  estates  intact  by  purchasing  a  piece 
of  land  from  his  cousin  as  if  it  were  no  great  matter. 
Nor  does  he  anywhere  in  his  writings  betray  concern 
about  his  personal  needs,  although  he  is  living  away 
from  home. 

We  may  think  of  him,  then,  at  the  opening  of  his 
career  as  coming  from  the  country  to  the  city,  a  very 
young  man,  of  deeply  religious  temperament,  care- 
fully trained  in  the  Levitical  tradition  of  his  family, 
and  possessed  of  independent  means  of  livelihood.  The 
latter  was  no  inconsiderable  advantage  when  one 
remembers  that  Amos  once  found  it  necessary  to  repel 
the  insinuation  that  he  was  dependent  for  his  living 
upon  the  sacrificial  revenues  of  the  priesthood.  So  far 
as  one  can  see,  no  prudential  considerations,  even  if  he 
had  been  inclined  to  heed  them,  prevented  Jeremiah 
from  speaking  his  full  conviction  about  the  worthless- 
ness  of  the  sacrificial  system.  We  are  inclined,  also,  to 
agree  with  Cornill  who  finds  it  almost  inconceivable 
that  the  prophet's  father  should  at  this  time  have  been 
an  officiating  priest  charged  with  the  administration 
of  the  cultus  which  was  to  the  son  both  an  object  of 
horror  and  proof  of  the  nation's  blackest  disgrace. 

Whether  Jeremiah  was  a  supporter  and  promoter  of 
Josiah's  reformation  is  not  easy  to  determine.  For 
some  time  the  writer  has  clung  to  the  belief  that  a 


260  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT 

genuine  Jeremianic  tradition  underlies  the  much-de- 
bated passage  about  "this  covenant"  *  in  Jer.  II :  1-14. 
If  genuine,  that  passage  can  refer  only  to  Deuteron- 
omy. Jeremiah,  in  obeying  the  divine  command  to  "pro- 
claim all  these  words  in  the  cities  of  Judah,"  2  would 
have  become  a  kind  of  circuit  rider  to  assist  in  the  pro- 
mulgation and  enforcement  of  the  newly  discovered  law. 
But  it  is  admittedly  difficult  to  account  for  such 
radically  different  judgments  in  the  mouth  of  the  same 
person,  as  are  contained  in  the  eleventh  and  eighth 
chapters  of  Jeremiah.  In  the  former  the  prophet  is  a 
vehement  partisan  of  Deuteronomy,  in  the  latter  he 
charges  up  something  to  "the  lying  pen  of  the  scribe." 
As  Cornill  very  pointedly  observes,  it  is  conceivable 
that  Jeremiah  might  have  said:  "Cursed  is  the  man 
that  trusteth  in  man,  and  maketh  flesh  his  arm,"  3  but 
never :  ' '  Cursed  is  the  man  who  heedeth  not  the  words 
of  this  covenant  [Deuteronomy]."  4  The  distinction 
between  ritual  and  ethical  requirements,  which  Deu- 
teronomy fails  to  make,  is  the  very  crux  of  Jeremiah's 
preaching.  Can  we,  then,  without  decisive  evidence, 
assert  that  this  greatest  of  Hebrew  crusaders  against 
ritualism  invoked  the  same  curse  upon  an  infringer  of 
a  food  taboo,  as  upon  a  violator  of  justice,  and  that  he 
smote  one  who  neglected  to  sacrifice  the  firstlings  of 
the  flock,  with  the  same  judgment  as  the  bearer  of  false 
witness? 

1  Cf.  II  Kings  23:3.  2  Jer.  11:6. 

3  Jer.  17:5.  4  Jer.  11:3. 


THE   FIRST  GREAT  HERETIC      261 

Marti  long  ago  maintained  that  Jeremiah's  attitude 
toward  Deuteronomy  was  one  of  disapproval  from  the 
beginning.1  Duhm  and  Cornill,  after  most  exhaustive 
study  of  Jeremiah's  prophecies,  have  pronounced  pos- 
itively against  the  genuineness  of  11  : 1-14,  recognizing 
in  it  the  work  of  a  later  hand.  Since  this  is  the  only 
Biblical  passage  on  which  the  prophet's  friendly  par- 
ticipation in  the  Deuteronomic  reform  can  be  asserted, 
Marti's  judgment  appears  to  have  been  correct. 
Jeremiah's  public  activity  began  five  or  six  years  be- 
fore the  promulgation  of  Deuteronomy,  and  covered  the 
whole  eventful  period  during  which  the  new  religious 
program  was  put  into  force.  It  was  the  greatest 
religious  event  of  his  time  and  he  could  not  exercise  the 
functions  of  his  office  without  taking  a  public  attitude 
toward  it.  Yet  the  only  reference  to  the  Deuteronomic 
movement  in  his  writings  which  can  be  construed  as 
friendly  is  contained  in  a  passage  which  has  every 
appearance  of  having  been  written  for  Jeremiah  by  a 
priestly  redactor,  who  missed  the  sound  of  Jeremiah's 
voice  in  the  chorus  of  approving  amens.2 

In  view  of  all  the  facts  the  safest  conclusion  seems  to 
be  that  Jeremiah  never  gave  his  unqualified  approval 
to  the  Deuteronomic  program.  His  preaching  shows 
that  he  must  have  been  in  accord  with  some  aspects 
of  this  attempt  to  reduce  prophetic  ideals  to  practice. 
But  when  he  saw  that  this  "law  of  Jahveh "  was  made 
to  play  into  the  hands  of  the  inviolability  party ;  when 
1  Der  Profet  Jercmia  (1889),  pp.  9-20.  *  Jer.  11:5. 


262  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT 

its  emphasis  upon  spiritual  motives  was  perverted  into 
excessive  regard  for  ritual  observances;  when  the  law 
of  the  single  sanctuary,  intended  to  emancipate  reli- 
gion from  its  degrading  connection  with  the  former 
Canaanite  high  places,  was  invoked  for  the  protection 
of  priestly  pretensions  and  a  superstitious  faith  in  the 
magic  value  of  the  Jerusalem  temple,  Jeremiah  became 
the  critic  of  Deuteronomy  and  the  legalism  which  its 
official  expounders  read  into  it.  "How  can  ye  say,  We 
are  wise  and  the  law  of  Jahveh  is  with  us,"  he  exclaims. 
"But  behold  the  lying  pen  of  the  scribes  hath  made  of 
it  a  falsehood.  The  wise  men  are  put  to  shame ;  they  are 
dismayed  and  taken;  lo,  they  have  rejected  the  word  of 
Jahveh;  and  what  manner  of  wisdom  is  in  them?"  1 

There  is  increasing  agreement  among  Old  Testament 
scholars  that  this  severe  reprobation  is  Jeremiah's 
answer  to  the  book-religionists  of  his  day  who  claimed 
that  the  reform  of  the  cultus  on  the  basis  of  Deuter- 
onomy was  a  full  discharge  of  their  religious  obligations. 
He  sees  a  clearly  drawn  issue  between  the  form  and  the 
substance  of  religion,  between  reform  of  ceremonial 
and  reform  of  character.  In  his  opinion  Josiah's  ref- 
ormation has  brought  no  real  betterment,  for  it  has 
concerned  itself  only  with  the  externalities  of  religion ; 
with  physical  circumcision  and  the  like,  instead  of  that 
spiritual  rebirth  which  he  calls  circumcision  of  the 

1  Jer.  8:  8,  9.  Many  see  in  this  passage  a  direct  charge  of  literary  for- 
gery, and  it  was  so  understood  by  the  Targum.  Must  one  not  reckon, 
also,  with  the  possibility  that  Jeremiah  is  referring  to  the  Deuteronomic 
redaction  of  the  older  historical  works  which  must  have  begun  by  this 
time?  See  Note  B,  Appendix. 


THE  FIRST  GREAT  HERETIC      263 

heart.1  What  the  book-men  regard  as  a  return  to  God 
is  to  him  mere  hypocrisy.2 

We  have  pointed  out  in  a  previous  chapter  that 
Micah  attests  for  his  own  time  the  existence  of  a  clique 
or  party,  composed  of  elders,  priests,  and  prophets, 
who  were  inclined  to  rely  for  protection  upon  the 
supposed  inviolability  of  the  temple  as  Jahveh's  dwell- 
ing-place. "Jahveh  is  among  us,"  they  said,  "no  evil 
can  befall  us."  3  It  is  not  difficult  to  imagine  what 
reinforcement  the  views  of  this  inviolability  party 
must  have  received  from  the  Deuteronomic  choice  of 
Jerusalem  as  the  only  legitimate  sanctuary. 

In  seeking  to  determine  the  character  and  motives 
of  the  men  who  constituted  this  party  one  must  take 
account  of  Micah's  charge  that  "the  heads  thereof 
judge  for  reward,  and  the  priests  thereof  teach  for 
hire,  and  the  prophets  thereof  divine  for  money."4 
Judging  by  Jeremiah's  characterization  of  their  suc- 
cessors in  his  time  they  were  not  a  whit  better.  Inas- 
much as  these  bribe-takers  and  pious  grafters,  bent 
only  upon  the  utmost  exploitation  of  their  sacred  office 
for  personal  gain,  claimed  to  be  immune  from  punish- 
ment, because  Jahveh  could  or  would  not  hurl  the 
lightnings  of  his  judgment  against  the  temple  and  the 
temple  city,  ethical  religion  had  indeed  come  to  a 
serious  pass.  The  reader  must  bear  in  mind  that  sword, 
famine,  pestilence  and  wild  beasts  were  according  to 

1  Jer.  4:4;  cf.  9:24.  2Jer.  3:10. 

<  Micah  3:  11.  *  Micah  3:11. 


264  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

the  theology  of  that  day  Jahveh's  "four  grievous 
punishments."1  The  inviolability  dogma,  therefore, 
if  true,  had  the  effect  of  placing  the  Jerusalemites  be- 
yond the  reach  of  Jahveh's  instruments  of  correction. 

In  placing  their  reliance  upon  the  temple  as  a  guar- 
antee of  safety  they  claimed  to  be  orthodox  defenders 
of  Deuteronomy.  Had  not  Jahveh  by  the  choice  of  the 
Jerusalem  temple  as  his  "house"  shown  his  intention 
to  dwell  there?  Had  not  the  reformation  been  under- 
taken with  the  divine  assurance  that  the  calamities 
threatened  in  the  twenty-eighth  chapter  of  Deuteron- 
omy could  still  be  averted?  This  being  so,  who  could 
dare  to  assert  that  when  a  god  of  Jahveh's  power  had 
chosen  a  place  "to  cause  his  name  to  dwell  there"  he 
would  ever  allow  Judah's  foreign  enemies  to  profane 
it?  Thus  the  opponents  of  Jeremiah  were  enabled  to 
fortify  their  position  with  whatever  of  passion  or  prej- 
udice could  be  aroused  in  the  people  by  an  appeal  to 
false  orthodoxy  and  pretended  patriotism. 

But  our  fearless  prophet  saw  only  too  clearly  that 
in  making  the  safety  of  Judah  dependent  not  upon 
character,  but  upon  the  magic  value  of  the  sacred 
buildings,  his  enemies  were  using  the  reformation 
itself  to  create  another  unmoral  faith.  The  dislodge- 
ment  of  superstitious  regard  for  the  many  sacred 
places  thus  became  the  unintended  means  of  fostering 
a  worse  superstition  at  Jerusalem.  Jeremiah  states  the 
issue  uncompromisingly :  "Trust  ye  not  in  lying  words, 

1  Ezek.  14: 21 ;  cf.  Jer.  21 : 7,  9. 


THE  FIRST  GREAT  HERETIC      265 

saying,  The  temple  of  Jahveh,  the  temple  of  Jahveh, 
the  temple  of  Jahveh,  is  this!  For,  if  ye  thoroughly 
amend  your  ways  and  your  doings;  if  ye  thoroughly 
execute  justice  between  a  man  and  his  neighbor;  if  ye 
oppress  not  the  sojourner  (g&r),  the  fatherless  and  the 
widow,  and  shed  not  innocent  blood  in  this  place,  .  .  . 
then  will  I  cause  you  to  dwell  in  this  place,  in  the  land 
that  I  gave  to  your  fathers,  from  of  old  even  for- 


evermore."1 


With  equal  candor  he  points  out  the  moral  conse- 
quences of  their  inviolability  doctrine.  It  made  Jahveh 
the  patron  and  defender  of  their  wickedness  in  even  a 
more  drastic  sense  than  the  contemporaries  of  Amos 
had  claimed  when  they  assumed  that  Jahveh  as  their 
national  deity  must  as  a  matter  of  course  protect  his 
people.  Then  it  was  "the  day  of  Jahveh,"  the  expres- 
sion of  the  divine  king's  tutelary  solicitude  for  the 
safety  of  his  subjects,  that  must  guarantee  immunity 
from  every  misfortune;  now  a  later  generation  claims 
to  be  safe  from  political  disaster  because  Jahveh  must 
hold  his  chosen  and  only  sanctuary  inviolable. 

Jeremiah  replies  that  its  use  as  a  shield  for  evil  doers 
would  be  an  incomparably  greater  violation  of  its 
sanctity  than  its  destruction  at  the  hands  of  political 
enemies.  "  Behold  ye  trust  in  lying  words  that  cannot 
profit.  Will  ye  steal,  murder,  and  commit  adultery  .  .  . 
and  come  and  stand  before  me  in  this  house  which  is 
called  by  my  name,  and  say,  We  are  safe ;  in  order  that 

1  Jer.  7:4-7. 


266  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT 

ye  may  continue  to  do  all  these  abominations?  Is  this 
house  which  is  called  by  my  name  become  a  den  of 
robbers  in  your  eyes?  Verily,  I  also  regard  it  as  such, 
saith  Jahveh."  1 

With  great  aptness  he  then  reminds  them  of  the  fate 
of  the  ancient  sanctuary  of  Shiloh  to  whose  destruction 
he  alludes  as  a  well-known  event,  but  which  no  other 
writer  of  the  Old  Testament  mentions.2  If  Shiloh's 
destruction  was  the  result  of  a  Philistine  foray  it  was 
not  an  edifying  example  of  Jahveh's  care  for  his  dwell- 
ing-place. Jeremiah  explains  the  event  by  the  usual 
pragmatic  standards  of  the  Old  Testament  as  a  judg- 
ment of  Jahveh  for  the  wickedness  of  Israel,  and  fore- 
casts the  same  fate  for  Jerusalem. 

"Go  ye  now  unto  my  dwelling  place  which  was  in 
Shiloh,  where  I  caused  my  name  to  dwell  in  former 
times,  and  see  what  I  did  to  it  for  the  wickedness  of 
my  people  Israel.  And  now  because  ye  have  done  all 
these  evil  deeds,  saith  Jahveh.  .  .  .  Therefore  will  I 
do  unto  the  house  which  is  called  by  my  name,  wherein 
ye  trust,  and  unto  the  place  which  I  gave  to  you  and  to 
your  fathers,  as  I  did  to  Shiloh."3  Jeremiah's  oppo- 
nents considered  this  a  blasphemous  utterance,  for  it 
was  at  variance  with  their  understanding  of  the  word 
of  Jahveh  as  they  claimed  to  possess  it,  black  on  white 

1  Jer.  7:8-11. 

2  Wellhausen  plausibly  suggests  that  Jeremiah  must  have  found  an 
account  of  the  destruction  of  Shiloh  where  now  stands  I  Sam.  7.  There 
is  good  reason  to  think  that  Deuteronomic  redactors  were  responsible 
for  its  omission. 

8  Jer.  7:12-15. 


THE   FIRST   GREAT   HERETIC      267 

in  Deuteronomy.  For  such  cases  the  book  itself  pre- 
scribed the  penalty:  "The  prophet  who  shall  presume 
to  speak  in  my  name  something  which  I  have  not  com- 
manded him  to  speak  .  .  .  that  prophet  shall  die."1 
Therefore  the  embittered  priests  and  prophets  accused 
him  before  the  nobles  and  the  people,  saying:  "This 
man  is  worthy  of  death ;  for  he  hath  prophesied  against 
this  city  as  ye  have  heard."2  Jeremiah's  simple  and 
courageous  defence  is,  "Jahveh  of  a  truth  hath  sent 
me  unto  you  to  speak  all  these  words  in  your  ears."3 
How  did  the  Deuteronomist  propose  to  distinguish 
the  true  prophet  from  the  false?  "How  shall  we  know 
the  word  which  Jahveh  hath  not  spoken?"4  It  is  a 
purely  external  criterion  that  he  establishes.  "When 
a  prophet  speaketh  in  the  name  of  Jahveh,  if  the  thing 
follow  not,  nor  come  to  pass,  that  is  the  thing  which 
Jahveh  hath  not  spoken,  but  the  prophet  hath  spoken 
it  presumptuously:  thou  shalt  not  be  afraid  of  him,"5 
i.e.,  have  no  hesitation  in  putting  him  to  death.  A  more 
utterly  futile  test  could  scarcely  be  imagined.  At  best 
it  was  applicable  to  prophets  of  the  remote  past  only  — 

1  Dt.  18:20.  2  Jer.  26:11.  3  Jer.  26:  15.  *  Dt.  18:21. 

6  Dt.  18:22.  Buttenwieser  (Prophets  of  Israel,  p.  29/.)  has  suggested 
that  this  law  was  expressly  aimed  at  such  prophetic  denials  of  the  divine 
authority  of  the  sacrificial  cult  as  Am.  5:21-25;  Hos.  6:6and  Is.  1:  II- 
17;  that  in  view  of  Dt.  12:32,  the  text  of  the  law  in  question  should  be 
translated:  "  If  it  happen  that  a  prophet  pronounceth  in  the  name  of 
Jahveh  that  which  shall  not  be  or  occur,  that  is  the  word  which  Jah- 
veh hath  not  spoken;  presumptuously  hath  the  prophet  pronounced  it: 
you  shall  not  be  afraid  of  him."  Jeremiah  then  offended  against  this 
law  by  declaring  "in  the  name  of  Jahveh"  that  the  cultus  was  not 
of  divine  institution,  whereas  his  opponents  claimed  Deuteronomy  in 
their  support  with  the  death  penalty. 


268  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

and  they  were  beyond  the  reach  of  penalties.  Even  in 
their  case  it  broke  down,  for  Isaiah  and  Micah  uttered 
predictive  prophecies  against  Jerusalem  that  had  not 
"come  to  pass "  in  Jeremiah's  time.  By  the  Deuteron- 
omist's  criterion  they  were  false  prophets  and  should 
have  been  put  to  death.  Obviously  the  law  did  not 
propose  to  delay  the  scrutiny  of  a  prophet's  credentials 
for  fifty  or  a  hundred  years,  otherwise  the  provision  of 
a  death  penalty  would  have  been  meaningless.  Curi- 
ously enough  the  Deuteronomist  does  not  even  believe 
that  Jahveh  exercises  exclusive  control  over  the  factors 
that  enter  into  the  proposed  test,  for  those  other  gods 
in  whose  real  existence  and  power  he  still  believes,  may 
give  to  their  own  prophets  the  same  endorsement.1  In 
any  case  a  prophet  was  stripped  of  his  influence  if  he 
was  not  to  be  believed  until  his  predictions  had  been 
fulfilled. 

It  is  needless  to  dwell  upon  the  impracticability  of 
this  criterion  for  the  detection  of  false  prophets.  It  did 
not  even  raise  the  question  of  moral  fitness  which 
Jeremiah  considers  the  only  true  test.  Had  the  proph- 
ets opposed  to  him  "stood  in  the  council  of  God,"  he 
declares,  they  would  "  have  turned  the  people  from  the 
evil  of  their  doings."2  The  fruits  by  which  the  Deute- 
ronomist proposes  to  judge  them  are  not  those  of  the 
spirit,  but  those  of  divination.   It  made  of  the  prophet 

1  Dt.  13: 1  ff.\  cf.  4: 19,  20.  According  to  the  ideas  of  the  time  no 
other  explanation  is  possible  than  that  these  successful  prognostications 
are  due  to  other  divinities  who  therefore  are  assumed  to  possess  real 
though  relative  power  and  knowledge. 

2  Jer.  23:21,  22;   cf.  Micah  3:7,  8. 


THE   FIRST   GREAT   HERETIC      269 

a  foreteller  instead  of  forthteller.  What  is  worse,  the 
bookmen  now  possessed  in  this  false  criterion  an  instru- 
ment admirably  adapted  for  the  stifling  of  real  proph- 
ecy which  since  the  days  of  Amos  had  addressed  itself 
not  to  signs  and  wonders,  but  to  the  moral  con- 
sciousness of  the  people.  Failure  to  perceive  and  take 
account  of  this  change  of  base  in  prophetism  is  one  of 
the  characteristic  limitations  of  Deuteronomy.  Jere- 
miah's enemies  constitute  themselves  the  custodians 
and  interpreters  of  the  book,  and  proceed  to  silence  the 
living  voice  of  prophecy.  The  tragic  seriousness  of  the 
situation  is  sufficiently  indicated  in  the  arrest  of  Jere- 
miah by  the  false  prophets  who  derive  their  warrant 
from  Deuteronomy,  and  in  the  slaying  of  Uriah  who 
did  no  more  than  to  prophesy  "according  to  all  the 
words  of  Jeremiah."  l 

Thus  the  first  heresy  trial  was  instituted  when  the 
first  authoritatively  accepted  book  of  the  Bible  had 
been  in  use  less  than  two  decades,  a  period  during 
which  it  probably  had  received  some  additions  from 
"the  lying  pen  of  the  scribes."2  Had  it  not  been  for 
some  laymen  who  pointed  out  that  Micah  the  Morash- 
tite,  under  precisely  similar  circumstances  a  hundred 
years  earlier,  had  prophesied  the  destruction  of  Jerusa- 
lem and  its  temple  without  being  molested,  Jeremiah 
probably  would  have  fallen  a  victim  to  the  unhallowed 
fanatical  zeal  of  his  priestly  enemies. 

1  Jer.  26:20-24. 

2  Steuernagel,  Marti,  and  others  consider  Dt.  18: 14-22  such  an  ad- 
dition. 


270  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

If  we  are  correct  in  our  estimate  of  the  part  which 
Deuteronomy  is  made  to  play  in  the  persecution  of 
Jeremiah,  this  heresy  trial  affords  the  first  authentic 
illustration  of  what  has  often  taken  place  in  the 
history  of  religion.  As  soon  as  a  given  stage  of  religious 
development  becomes  fixed  in  writing  and  barnacled 
with  dogmas,  the  growing  moral  and  intellectual  needs 
of  a  new  age  begin  to  lower  the  lifeboats.  In  the  ne- 
cessity of  choice  which  then  arises  between  dogma  and 
ethics,  the  orthodox  usually  take  the  dogma  and  the 
heretics  the  ethics.  Unfortunately  it  belongs  to  the 
tragedy  of  religion  that  this  conflict  renews  itself  in 
every  age;  for  it  invariably  happens  that  heretics  of 
one  age  become  the  orthodox  of  the  next,  who  then 
take  their  turn  in  attempting  to  retard  the  march  of 
moral  progress. 

It  should  be  observed  that  the  acceptance  of  the 
temple  as  a  palladium  by  the  inviolability  party  was 
only  an  extension  of  popular  confidence  in  the  efficacy 
of  sacrifices  to  secure  the  favor  of  Jahveh.  The  issue 
between  Jeremiah  and  his  opponents,  therefore,  relates 
in  the  last  analysis  to  the  cultus.  Deuteronomy  takes 
for  granted  the  existence  and  continuance  of  a  sacri- 
ficial system,  but  says  nothing  about  its  origin  or  its 
significance.  It  merely  provides  for  such  modifications 
as  are  made  necessary  by  the  appointment  of  a  single 
sanctuary.  We  have  elsewhere  sought  to  show  that 
Deuteronomy  apparently  knows  nothing  about  a  sub- 
stitutionary or  expiatory  use  of  sacrifice.    That  is  a 


THE   FIRST   GREAT   HERETIC      271 

later  product  of  the  developing  priestly  religion.  In  the 
Deuteronomic  programme  the  system  appears  to  have 
been  retained  as  an  institution  of  social  religion  and  as 
a  means  of  support  for  the  priesthood. 

The  priests  and  false  prophets  at  Jerusalem  con- 
strued this  permissive  attitude  as  a  mandatory  one, 
and  encouraged  the  people  to  think  that  sacrifices  were 
offered  to  God  as  a  quid  pro  quo,  as  a  consideration  in  a 
contract.  Jeremiah  faces  this  issue  uncompromisingly 
by  declaring  that  Jahveh  never  gave  any  commands  about 
sacrifices  in  the  Mosaic  period.  Apparently  the  prophet 
is  living  in  an  atmosphere  different  from  that  in  which 
Amos  and  Isaiah  l  spoke  their  mind  about  the  cultus. 
They  could  take  for  granted  as  well  known  that  God 
had  given  no  commands  about  sacrifice.  Jeremiah 
speaks  as  one  who  is  opposing  a  prevailing  opinion  to 
the  contrary. 

The  explanation  lies  in  the  fact  that  Deuteronomy 
had  appeared  in  the  mean  time.  Among  other  osten- 
sibly Mosaic  legislation  it  contained  regulatory  pre- 
scriptions regarding  sacrifices  at  the  central  sanctuary. 
When  these  were  exploited  as  mandatory  and  of  di- 
vine origin,  Jeremiah  stigmatizes  them  as  the  product 
of  "the  lying  pen  of  the  scribes."  This,  he  declares, 
is  what  God  really  says  about  their  man-made  rit- 
ual: "Add  your  burnt-offerings  unto  your  sacrifices, 
and  eat  ye  flesh.  For  I  spake  not  unto  your  fathers, 
nor  commanded  them  in  the  day  that  I  brought  them 

1  Am.  5:25;  Is.  1:  12. 


272  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  concerning  burnt-offerings 
and  sacrifices."1 

It  would  be  difficult  to  overrate  the  significance  of 
the  prophet's  statement  which  eliminates  both  the 
temple  and  the  cultus  from  the  essential  uses  of  reli- 
gion. Would  he  have  thus  contradicted  the  evidence 
of  the  twelfth  chapter  of  Deuteronomy  if  he  had 
believed  sacrifice  to  be  a  divinely  instituted  means  of 
obtaining  forgiveness  from  God?  According  to  his  the- 
ology, repentance  and  good  works  were  the  sole  require- 
ments. His  complaint  is  that  "no  one  repents  of  his 
wickedness,"2  but  that  all  rely  upon  the  cultus  to 
expiate  their  sins.  If  you  think,  he  says,  that  the  eat- 
ing of  a  sacrificial  meal  will  sanctify  you  and  render  you 
acceptable  to  God,  why  do  you  not  eat  the  meat  of  the 
burnt-offerings  besides  that  of  the  regular  sacrifices? 
Why  not  gorge  yourselves  with  holiness  ?  The  prophet's 
contempt  has  spoken  its  utmost  in  these  lines! 

Of  cognate  importance  is  an  interesting  passage  3 
about  the  "ark  of  the  covenant "  which  one  is  tempted, 
with  Erbt,  to  claim  for  Jeremiah,  in  spite  of  its  being 
imbedded  in  clearly  secondary  material.  The  writer 
covets  the  time  when  Hebrew  religion  will  be  rid  of  the 
ark  and  no  one  will  worry  about  it  any  longer.  This 
may  be  taken  to  imply  condemnation  of  the  supersti- 

1  Jer.  7:21,  22;  6:20.  Jeremiah  specifies  the  period  of  the  Exodus  be- 
cause the  legislation  of  Deuteronomy  is  put  into  the  mouth  of  Moses. 
Later  the  Priests'  Code  went  a  step  further  than  Deuteronomy  and  at- 
tributed even  the  origin  of  the  sacrificial  system  to  its  minutest  details  to 
divine  commands  received  by  Moses. 

2  Jer.  8:6.  »  Jer.  3:16. 


THE   FIRST   GREAT   HERETIC      273 

tious  veneration  accorded  to  it  in  earlier  times,  and  so 
marks  a  long  advance  over  primitive  ideas  reflected  in 
the  story  of  Uzzah's  death,  a  story  whose  assumptions 
about  God  are  shockingly  crude  and  false  from  a 
Christian  point  of  view.  After  all  it  matters  little 
whether  Jeremiah  uttered  these  words  about  the  ark. 
His  attitude  toward  the  cultus,  and  toward  the  temple 
as  a  palladium,  necessarily  included  the  ark.  It  seems 
almost  incredible  that  later  Judaism  should  have  far 
enough  mistaken  the  spirit  of  Jeremiah  to  make  him 
the  hero  of  a  legend  in  which  he  hides  the  ark  and  the 
altar  of  incense  in  a  cave  on  Mount  Nebo!  Jeremiah's 
instinctive  conviction  that  religion  is  a  matter  of  the 
heart  and  must  express  itself  practically  in  conforming 
conduct  to  moral  law  made  it  impossible  for  him  to 
encourage  faith  in  such  survivals  of  the  beggarly  ele- 
ments of  religion.  That  he  continued  to  objectify  the 
content  of  the  moral  law  in  terms  of  divine  commands 
and  prohibitions  is  necessarily  incidental  to  the  theol- 
ogy of  his  time. 

There  is  another  important  respect  in  which  Jere- 
miah transcends  the  limitations  of  Deuteronomy.  So 
far  as  the  evidence  of  Hebrew  literature  is  concerned 
this  prophet  is  the  first  ethical  monotheist  of  Israel. 
Unlike  the  Deuteronomist  he  does  not  believe  that 
Jahveh  shares  the  rule  of  the  world  with  other  deities. 
Nor  does  he  expressly  limit  God's  interest  to  Israel 
alone,  leaving  other  nations  to  the  tender  mercies  of 
the  deities  which  the  Deuteronomist  had  allotted  to 


274  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

them.1  We  have  elsewhere  2  pointed  out  that  as  ethi- 
cal monotheism  such  a  view  of  God's  relation  to  man- 
kind is  unworthy  of  the  name.  It  is  only  a  modified 
henotheism  in  which  the  idea  of  a  national  God  squares 
itself  with  a  belief  in  Jahveh's  supremacy  over  other 
deities  whose  real  existence  is  not  as  yet  questioned. 

Jeremiah  takes  higher  ground.  He  frankly  denies 
the  existence  of  the  Deuteronomist's  vicegerent  deities 
by  calling  them  "no-gods,"  nonentities.  The  following 
passage,  in  fact,  seems  to  contain  an  allusion  to  the 
theory  that  Jahveh  has  assigned  to  foreign  nations  the 
subordinate  deities  which  are  the  objects  of  their  wor- 
ship: "O  Jahveh,  my  strength  and  my  stronghold,  and 
my  refuge  in  the  day  of  affliction,  unto  thee  shall  the 
nations  come  from  the  ends  of  the  earth,  and  shall  say, 
Our  fathers  have  inherited  naught  but  lies  [i.e.,  false 
gods],  even  vanity  and  things  wherein  is  no  profit. 
Can  a  man  make  for  himself  gods  —  which  yet  are  no 
gods?"3 

In  removing  these  deities  from  the  category  of  gods, 
and  in  voicing  the  protest  of  foreign  nations  against  the 
partiality  and  injustice  of  such  a  restricted  disposi- 
tion of  divine  favor,  Jeremiah  takes  the  last  step  that 
"needed  to  be  taken  toward  ethical  as  well  as  theoretical 
monotheism.  When  the  prophet  calls  these  deities 
"no-gods,"  he  is  by  the  logic  of  the  situation  compelled 

1  Dt.  4:19,20.  2  page  210/. 

3  Jer.  16: 19,  20;  cf.  2: 10,  11:5:7.  Duhm  regards  the  passage  as  sec- 
ondary, but  Cornill  maintains  its  authenticity;  cf.  also  48:35,  and  49:2 
(LXX)  which  may  be  echoes  of  Jeremiah's  teaching.  Jer.  32:  27,  which 
contains  the  expression  "God  of  all  flesh,"  is  certainly  by  a  later  hand. 


THE   FIRST   GREAT   HERETIC      275 

to  break  the  bonds  of  a  particularistic  conception  of 
God,  or  to  leave  all  foreign  nations  without  objects  of 
worship  —  godless  in  the  strict  sense.  He  has  too  pro- 
found and  true  a  conception  of  Jahveh's  character  to 
choose  the  latter  alternative,  although  he  cannot  and 
does  not  at  all  points  free  himself  from  the  trammels 
of  the  national-god  idea. 

In  view  of  the  fact  that  ethical  monotheism  and 
universalism  naturally  go  together,  one  is  disposed  to 
expect  on  the  part  of  Jeremiah  a  clear  recognition  of 
the  fact  that  God  sustains  a  direct  relationship  to 
other  nations  also.  But  passages  which  reflect  this 
idea  are  extremely  few  and  of  such  a  character  that 
they  are  open  to  controversy  as  to  their  authenticity. 
There  is  the  parable  of  the  potter  who  remoulds  the 
vessels  that  are  accidentally  marred  under  his  hands.1 
The  lesson  that  so  God  will  spare  any  nation  that 
repents  and  turns  from  evil,  even  though  in  his  secret 
counsel  he  had  resolved  "to  pluck  up  and  destroy,"  is 
by  many  thought  to  have  furnished  inspiration  for  the 
fine  universalism  of  the  Book  of  Jonah.  Unfortunately, 
there  is  no  reasonable  certainty  that  this  potter  section 
of  the  text  came  from  Jeremiah. 

Similar  uncertainty  attaches  to  another  passage  2  in 
which  it  is  stated  that  God  will  "return  and  have 
compassion"  on  Judah's  "evil  neighbours"  when  the 

1  Jer.  18:1-10.  Both  Duhm  and  Cornill  regard  verses  5-10  as  sec- 
ondary. The  latter  accepts  verses  1-4,  and  sees  in  them  an  expression  of 
anti-predestinarian  views  of  God  and  the  world. 

2  Jer.  12: 14-16. 


276  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

demands  of  divine  justice  have  been  satisfied.  This  in- 
clusion of  the  heathen  in  Jahveh's  compassionate  pur- 
poses ends  with  the  remarkably  evangelical  forecast  of 
a  time  when  neighboring  nations  shall  learn  to  worship 
Jahveh  as  the  Israelites  learned  to  worship  Baal. 

But  even  though  it  were  clearly  shown  that  these 
passages  are  authentic  utterances  of  Jeremiah,  —  and 
there  is  nothing  in  them  which  is  inconsistent  with  the 
spirit  of  his  teaching,  —  a  candid  reader  of  his  book 
will  have  to  admit  that  even  this  great  prophet  did  not 
rise  fully  to  a  conception  of  Jahveh's  undiscriminating 
and  fatherly  interest  in  all  mankind.  He  did  not  yet 
clearly  see  or  point  out  the  consequences  of  his  own 
ethical  individualism.  In  his  message  the  God  of  Israel 
still  is  at  times  a  jealous  partisan,  and  even  where  he 
brings  Israel  into  unfavorable  comparison  with  other 
peoples,1  he  assumes  that  the  Hebrews  have  an  ex- 
clusive place  in  Jahveh's  favor. 

But  the  spirit  of  Jeremiah's  utterances,  and  the 
significant  nuance  which  he  gives  to  his  characteriza- 
tions of  Jahveh,  show  that  he  is  leading  prophetic 
thought  in  the  direction  of  a  broader  humanity.  It  is 
apparent,  for  instance,  in  the  very  different  senses  in 
which  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel  employ  the  expression 
"to  know  Jahveh."  2  Ezekiel  is  a  man  of  narrower 
sympathies  who  does  not  get  beyond  the  particularism 
of  Deuteronomy.   But  Deutero-Isaiah,  the  Great  Un- 

1  Jer.  2:  io. 

2  Jer.  9:6,  24:24:7,  etc.;  cf.  Ezek.  20:26;  6: 10;  12:20,  etc. 


THE   FIRST  GREAT  HERETIC      277 

known  of  the  exile,  picks  up  the  smouldering  torch  of 
Jeremiah  and  fans  it  into  a  blaze  of  light. 

Jeremiah,  like  his  predecessors,  believed  in  the  power 
of  Jahveh's  judgments  to  touch  the  springs  of  action 
and  so  to  bring  about  a  change  of  conduct.  His  heroic 
defence  of  Jahveh's  freedom  to  punish,  as  against  those 
who  claimed  immunity  for  Jerusalem,  indicates  how 
little  disposed  he  was  to  relinquish  the  moral  lever- 
age of  this  belief.  In  his  conflict  with  Hananiah,  the 
prophet  of  peace,  he  makes  the  point  that  the  true 
Hebrew  prophets  from  time  immemorial  have  "pro- 
phesied ...  of  war,  of  evil,  and  of  pestilence."  l  If  any 
one  now  prophesies  national  prosperity,  the  accepted 
sign  of  Jahveh's  approval,  he  will  not  need  to  wait  long 
for  his  answer.  Jahveh,  expressing  his  moral  judgment 
in  the  political  events  of  the  immediate  future,  must 
decide  the  issue  in  Jeremiah's  favor.  For  in  his  opinion 
there  is  not  a  single  just  or  truthful  man  in  Jerusalem.2 

Since  the  growth  of  ethical  ideals  in  Old  Testament 
times  is  closely  associated  with  the  rise  of  ethical  in- 
dividualism, it  is  proper  to  enquire  whether  Jeremiah 
succeeds  in  breaking  away  from  the  group-morality  of 
Deuteronomy  and  the  idea  that  the  nation,  rather  than 
the  individual,  is  subject  to  rewards  and  punishments. 
It  must  be  confessed  that  the  most  careful  scrutiny  of 
Jeremiah's  preaching  reveals  no  appreciable  departure 
from  the  hitherto  accepted  beliefs.  His  warnings  and 
his  promises  are  Jahveh's  word  to  the  nation,  or  to 
1  Jcr.  28:8,9.  2  Jer.  5:158:6,  13-15. 


278  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

such  divisions  of  it  as  have  been  created  by  political 
events,  not  by  the  personal  worthiness  or  unworthiness 
of  individuals.1  Nor  does  he  manifest  any  scruple 
about  the  inclusion  of  children  under  the  judgments  he 
proclaims,  for  the  allusion  2  to  the  proverb  about  the 
fathers  who  have  eaten  sour  grapes  has  almost  cer- 
tainly been  added  by  some  one  who  was  dependent 
upon  Ezekiel.  Children  are  part  of  the  whole,  and 
share  the  weal  or  woe,  the  innocence  or  the  guilt,  of 
that  social  group,  the  nation,  which  is  still  the  subject 
of  religion  in  the  formal  categories  of  his  thinking. 

But  it  is  a  remarkable  fact  that  while  he  does  not 
enunciate  a  doctrine  of  individual  responsibility,  yet 
his  conception  of  God  and  religion,  taken  as  a  whole, 
has  served  as  a  powerful  stimulus  toward  the  recogni- 
tion of  the  moral  value  of  the  individual.3  The  ritual 
homage  which  he  disparages  was  chiefly  identified  with 
communal  and  official  religion ;  but  the  moral  obedience 
which  he  advocates  points  directly  to  the  individual. 
This  is  the  real  bearing  of  the  fine  passage  in  which 
Jeremiah,  or  some  one  who  had  caught  his  spirit,  con- 
trasts the  priestly  type  of  religion  with  his  own  hope  of 
a  better  one:  "  I  will  put  my  law  in  their  inward  parts 
and  in  their  heart  will  I  write  it."4  Conduct  born 
of  the  knowledge  of  a  law  graven  upon  the  heart  is 

1  Jer.  chap.  24;  42:7  ff.;  21:8/. 

2  Jer.  31:29,  30  ;  cf.  7: 18;  Dt.  24: 16. 

3  One  of  the  best  discussions  of  the  subject  is  an  article  by  J.  M.  P. 
Smith  in  AJT,  vol.  x  (1906),  entitled  "The  Rise  of  Individualism  among 
the  Hebrews,"  now  in  his  book,  The  Prophet  and  his  Problems  (1914). 

4  Jer.  31:33. 


THE  FIRST  GREAT  HERETIC      279 

not  found  in  the  chain-gang  of  a  formal  state  reli- 
gion. When  Jeremiah  characterizes  Jahveh  as  one  who 
searches  the  heart  as  the  seat  of  evil  passions,  and  tries 
the  kidneys  as  the  seat  of  the  mind,1  even  his  physio- 
logical psychology  goes  in  search  of  the  individual. 
While  his  conception  of  the  circumcision  of  the  heart, 
of  the  facing  about  which  is  demanded,2  is  to  be  re- 
garded as  only  an  approximation  to  the  New  Testa- 
ment idea  of  conversion,  its  implications  are  necessarily 
individualistic.  Finally,  Jeremiah  is  himself  the  most 
conspicuous  example  in  the  Old  Testament  of  religion 
individualized  in  a  person.  The  revelations  he  makes 
of  his  own  religious  experience,  his  assurance  of  the 
validity  of  his  call,  his  testimony  to  the  compulsive 
power  of  his  conscience,  —  these  carry  a  strong  implied 
recognition  of  the  moral  autonomy  of  the  individual. 
He  stands  for  an  untraditionalized  conscience  and  an 
open  road. 

To  be  able  to  feel  certain  that  the  famous  passage 
about  the  new  covenant 3  is  from  Jeremiah's  pen  would 
be  a  great  satisfaction.  An  appeal  from  the  Deuter- 
onomic  law-book  to  a  law  graven  upon  the  heart  would 
have  been  a  fitting  climax  to  his  long  struggle  against 
ritualism  and  externalism  in  the  religion  of  his  time.  A 
few  recent  students  of  the  Book  of  Jeremiah,  among 
them  Cornill,  as  yet  see  no  sufficient  reason  for  aban- 
doning Jeremiah's  authorship  of  the  passage.    Never- 

1  Jer.  17  :9,  10;  1 1  :  20.  2  Jer.  8  :5. 

3  jer.  31:  31-34. 


280  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

theless,  it  is  difficult  to  overlook  the  fact  that  it  stands 
in  a  context  of  secondary  material,  and  has  secondary 
marks  of  its  own.  But  whether  it  be  Jeremiah's  or  not, 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  it  expresses  precisely  the 
spirit  and  aim  of  Jeremiah's  work. 

As  in  the  case  of  Isaiah,  we  have  made  no  attempt  to 
present  a  critical  survey  of  genuine  and  secondary  ma- 
terials in  the  Book  of  Jeremiah.  The  literary  analysis 
is  too  intricate  and  technical  for  discussion  in  such  a 
work  as  this.  We  must  refer  the  reader  to  the  com- 
mentaries of  Duhm  and  Cornill,  to  the  characteriza- 
tions of  Jeremiah  by  Marti  and  Erbt,  and  to  the  stan- 
dard works  on  Introduction.  Few  great  characters  of 
the  Old  Testament  have  suffered  more  through  dis- 
torting additions  by  later  editors  than  Jeremiah.  We 
have  tried  to  make  him  stand  forth  in  his  own  char- 
acter, revealed  by  his  own  or  Baruch's  writings,  so  far 
as  the  most  careful  critical  analysis  can  determine 
them.  The  recovery  of  such  a  superb  personality  from 
under  the  daubs  of  supplementers  is  a  task  worthy  of 
all  the  skill  that  reverent  scholarship  can  bring  to  it. 


CHAPTER  X 

THE    REPUDIATION   OF   RITUAL   RELIGION    BY   THE 
PRE-EXILIC   PROPHETS 

Few  mistakes  have  introduced  greater  confusion  into 
the  study  of  Old  Testament  religion  than  the  hoary  as- 
sumption that  the  great  prophets  and  the  ritual  laws  of 
the  Pentateuch  agree  in  their  valuation  of  sacrifice. 
In  Ezekiel,  Leviticus  and  kindred  priestly  literature 
God's  favor  is  dependent  upon  a  strict  performance  of 
the  ritual.  The  prophets  from  Amos  to  Jeremiah  de- 
nounce and  repudiate  this  view.  In  the  issue  which  they 
raise  between  ethical  and  ritual  purity  they  make  the 
sanction  of  God  go  with  the  former  and  deny  any  in- 
trinsic value  to  the  latter.  In  our  opinion  Professor 
G.  B.  Gray  does  not  put  the  case  too  strongly  when 
he  says,  "  It  is  not  the  institution,  but  the  repudiation, 
of  sacrifice,  that  distinguishes  the  religion  of  Israel."  ! 
It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  observe  that  the  phrase 
"ritual  purity"  is  a  misnomer  of  ancient  lineage,  a 
legacy  from  times  of  magic  and  superstition.  The  ex- 
pression describes  a  quality  of  taboo  devoid  of  any  in- 
herent connection  with  moral  purity. 

Attention  has  been  directed,  in  previous  chapters,  to 
certain  well-known  passages  in  which  Amos,  Hosea, 
Isaiah,  and  Jeremiah,  strongly  disparage  the  sacrificial 

1  Isaiah,  Int.  Crit.  Com.  (1912),  p.  17. 


282  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT 

cult.  The  importance  attached  to  it  in  popular  religion, 
they  declare,  is  not  only  without  warrant  of  divine 
authority,  but  is  a  menace  to  acceptable  religion,  which 
must  consist  primarily  in  the  practice  of  justice  and 
humanity.  It  will  be  useful  to  unite  their  actual  testi- 
mony on  this  point  into  a  single  focus. 

i.  Amos,  speaking  for  Jahveh,  declares:  "I  hate,  I 
despise  your  sacrificial  feasts,  and  I  will  not  smell  [the 
savor  of]  your  festal  assemblies.  Yea,  though  ye  offer 
me  your  burnt-offerings  and  meal-offerings,  I  will  not 
accept  them ;  neither  will  I  regard  the  peace-offerings 
of  your  fat  beasts.  Take  thou  away  from  me  the  noise 
of  thy  songs ;  for  I  will  not  hear  the  melody  of  thy  viols. 
But  let  justice  roll  down  as  waters,  and  righteous- 
ness as  an  everflowing  stream.  Did  ye  bring  unto  me 
sacrifices  and  offerings  in  the  wilderness  forty  years, 
O  house  of  Israel?"  * 

The  first  of  the  ritual  functions  denounced  by  Amos 
is  the  pilgrim-feast  or  hag,  celebrated  with  animal 
sacrifices,  processions,  feasting,  and  dancing.  Accord- 
ing to  the  early  documents  it  is  this  particular  kind  of 
feast  that  Moses  declares  Jahveh  has  commanded  the 
Israelites  to  celebrate  at  Mount  Sinai.2  There  was  a 
cycle  of  three  great  pilgrim-feasts  which  Moses  com- 
manded on  the  authority  of  Jahveh,  and  their  observ- 
ance was  deemed  so  important  an  element  of  institu- 
tional religion  that  they  were  incorporated  into  the 

1  Am.  5:21-25. 

2  Ex.  5:  r;  10:9,  etc.  Ex.  23: 14,  represents  Jahveh  as  giving  the  com- 
mand "three  times  shalt  thou  hold  a  pilgrim-feast  to  me  in  the  year." 


RITUAL  RELIGION   REPUDIATED    283 

Jahvistic  decalogue  of  the  thirty-fourth  chapter  of 
Exodus.  The  second  ritual  observance  is  the  'asarah, 
or  festival  period  during  which  men  observe  the  cere- 
monial taboos  intended  to  render  them  ritually  clean 
('asdr)  for  the  consumption  of  the  "holy"  sacrificial 
meat.  Amos  declares  these  rites  and  observances  dis- 
gusting in  the  eyes  of  Jahveh,  and  assumes  that  during 
the  nomadic  period  of  Israel's  religion  on  the  southern 
steppes  such  sacrificial  functions  formed  no  part  of 
their  religion.  Let  them,  he  says  ironically,  come  to 
Bethel  and  to  Gilgal  to  celebrate  their  pilgrim-feasts ; 
let  them  bring  their  sacrifices  every  morning,  and  their 
tithes  every  three  days.  Atonements  for  sin?  Yes, 
merry  additions  and  multiplication  of  transgression! 
Gifts  to  Jahveh?  Observe  his  return  gifts  —  "clean- 
ness of  teeth,"  drought,  pestilence,  and  the  sword! 
"This  [ritual  religion]  pleaseth  you,  O  ye  children  of 
Israel,  saith  the  Lord  Jahveh!"  1 

2.  Hosea's  attitude  toward  the  sacrificial  cultus  is 
set  forth  in  the  classic  statement  of  Jahveh:  "I  desire 
goodness,  and  not  sacrifice;  the  knowledge  of  God,  and 
not  burnt-offerings."  2  Another  passage,  remarkably 
similar  to  the  one  quoted  from  Amos,  charges  that  the 
sacrificial  altars  only  furnish  occasion  for  sinning.  In- 
stead of  observing  the  real  requirements  of  God,  "the 
ten  thousand  things  of  his  [my]  law,"  "they  delight  in 
the  sacrificial  feasts,  sacrifice  flesh  and  eat  it";  there- 

1  Am.  4:4/. 

2  Hos.  6:6.  For  details  about  this  passage  see  p.  155,  footnote. 


284  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT 

fore  Jahveh  "will  remember  their  iniquity,  and  punish 
their  sins."  * 

3.  Isaiah,  in  a  passage  of  unsurpassed  vigor,  de- 
clares: "What  unto  me  is  the  multitude  of  your 
sacrifices?  saith  Jahveh:  I  have  had  enough  of  the 
burnt-offerings  of  rams,  and  the  fat  of  fed  beasts ;  and 
I  delight  not  in  the  blood  of  bullocks,  or  of  lambs,  or 
of  he-goats.  When  ye  come  to  see  my  face,  who  hath 
required  this  at  your  hand?  Cease  from  trampling 
my  courts,  nor  bring  me  vain  oblations ;  incense  is  an 
abomination  unto  me;  new  moon  and  sabbath,  the 
calling  of  assemblies  —  I  cannot  [abide  them] ;  away 
with  fast  and  festal  assembly  ('asarah).  Your  new 
moons  and  your  appointed  feasts  my  soul  hateth; 
they  are  a  burden  unto  me;  I  am  weary  of  bearing 
them."  2  He  not  only  challenges  his  co-religionists  to 
show  where  or  when  God  ever  instituted  the  sacrificial 
cultus;  but  he  expressly  declares  that  their  "fear"  of 
Jahveh,  their  religion,  is  "a  precept  of  men  learned  by 
rote."  3  By  this  religion,  of  course,  he  means  nothing 
else  than  the  sacrificial  cultus. 

4.  Jeremiah  was  living  at  a  time  when  the  priests 
in  charge  of  the  centralized  cultus  at  Jerusalem  were 
beginning  to  claim  divine  authority  for  it,  probably 
basing  their  claim  upon  Deuteronomy.  But  he  denies 
the  divine  sanction  claimed,  and  so  joins  Isaiah  in 
stigmatizing  it   as  a  man-made  ritual.    "Thus  saith 

1  Hos.  8:11-13.  Cf.  Marti,  Dodekapropheton,  p.  69;  Guthe,  HSAT, 
11,  p.  12. 

2  Is.  1:11-14;  cf.  28:7,  8  ;  22:12-14.  3  Is.  29:13. 


RITUAL   RELIGION   REPUDIATED    285 

Jahveh  of  hosts,  the  God  of  Israel:  Add  your  burnt- 
offerings  unto  your  sacrifices,  and  eat  ye  flesh.  For  I 
spake  not  unto  your  fathers,  nor  commanded  them  in 
the  day  that  I  brought  them  out  of  Egypt,  concerning 
burnt-offerings  and  sacrifices."  * 

Like  his  predecessors  he  cherishes  a  tradition  about 
the  religion  of  the  Mosaic  period  which  is  the  very  op- 
posite of  that  held  by  those  who  see  in  Moses  the  pro- 
mulgator of  the  ritual  laws  of  the  Pentateuch:  "Thus 
saith  Jahveh,  Stand  ye  in  the  ways  and  see  and  ask  for 
the  old  paths  [of  Jahveh],  and  note  which  is  the  good 
way;  and  walk  therein,  and  ye  shall  find  rest  for  your 
souls:  but  they  said,  We  will  not  walk  therein.  Then 
I  set  watchmen  over  them  [saying]:  Hearken  to  the 
sound  of  the  alarm-trumpet;  but  they  said,  We  will 
not  hearken.  ...  To  what  purpose  cometh  there  to 
me  frankincense  from  Sheba  and  calamus  from  a  far 
country?  Your  burnt-offerings  are  not  acceptable,  nor 
your  sacrifices  pleasing  unto  me."  2  The  ancient  paths 
of  Jahveh,  as  he  has  elsewhere  indicated,  are  the  paths 
of  morality,  preached  by  Jahveh's  watchmen,  the 
prophets.  Departure  from  them  cannot  be  counter- 
vailed by  even  the  latest  and  costliest  refinements  of 
the  cultus. 

These  solemn  declarations  of  the  futility  of  sacri- 

1  Jer.  7:21,  22. 

2  Jer.  6: 16, 17, 20.  Verses  18-19  break  the  connection  and  must  be  an 
insertion  by  a  later  hand.  The  testimony  of  the  passage  is  not  materially 
affected,  even  though  one  were,  on  metrical  grounds,  to  regard  the  refer- 
ence to  burnt-offerings  and  sacrifices  as  secondary.  For  details  the 
student  must  be  referred  to  the  commentaries  of  Duhm  and  Cornill. 


286  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

fices,  and  the  prophets'  settled  conviction  that  the 
introduction  of  the  sacrificial  cultus  constituted  a 
corruption  of  an  earlier  and  purer  religion,  are  signifi- 
cant. Amos,  for  instance,  assumed  that  the  religion  of 
Israel's  wilderness  days  was  non-sacrificial,  and  con- 
sequently better  than  that  of  his  contemporaries.  If 
this  better  religion  was  Mosaic  it  was  obviously  not 
the  elaborately  ritualistic  religion  ascribed  to  Moses  in 
the  Pentateuch.  There  clearly  were  two  religions,  one 
of  the  priests,  the  other  of  the  prophets.  Despite  the 
latter's  unequivocal  repudiation  of  all  sacrifices  as 
such,  the  priestly  epigones  of  the  legalistic  period  of 
Hebrew  religion  obscured  these  denunciations  with 
their  additions  and  revisions  in  order  that  they  might 
seem  to  refer  only  to  transgressions  of  ritual  regula- 
tions governing  the  where,  how,  and  by  whom;  not  to 
the  sacrificial  system  itself.  In  this  way  they  twisted 
the  prophetic  writings  into  a  superficial  harmony  with 
their  views. 

The  magnificent  peroration  of  a  later  prophetic 
writer,  who  sums  up  the  points  of  emphasis  in  the 
teaching  of  Amos,  Hosea,  and  Isaiah,  shows  how  com- 
pletely, for  him  as  for  them,  the  question,  "What  is 
pleasing  to  God?"  had  passed  the  stage  of  specula- 
tion. "Will  Jahveh  be  pleased,"  he  asks,  "with  thou- 
sands of  rams,  or  with  ten  thousands  of  rivers  of  oil? 
Shall  I  give  my  first-born  for  my  transgression,  the  fruit 
of  my  body  for  the  sin  of  my  soul?"  In  his  classic 
reply  there  is  no  place  for  sacrifice.  What  Jahveh  re- 


RITUAL  RELIGION   REPUDIATED    28; 

quires  is  "to  do  justly"  (Amos),  "and  to  love  kind- 
ness" (Hosea),  "and  to  walk  humbly  with  thy  God" 
(Isaiah).1 

The  work  of  the  prophets  had,  in  some  minds  at 
least,  achieved  the  conviction  that  God's  requirements 
were  of  a  moral  character,  and  that  material  sacrifices 
were  not  moral.  It  follows  that  Amos,  Hosea,  Isaiah, 
Jeremiah,  and  the  author  of  the  last  passage  quoted, 
could  not  have  believed  in  a  divinely  revealed  ritual 
such  as  that  of  Leviticus  claims  to  be,  even  if  it  had 
been  in  existence  in  their  time.  Holding  sacrifices  to  be 
worthless,  they  necessarily  held  the  sacrificial  cultus 
equally  worthless.  The  contrary  view  was  irrecon- 
cilable with  their  conception  of  Jahveh's  character. 

It  was  in  the  nature  of  things  to  be  expected  that 
the  more  thoughtful  religious  leaders  of  Israel  would 
sooner  or  later  become  convinced  that  sacrifices  are 
in  themselves  an  irrational  element  of  religion.  The 
writer  of  a  Psalm,2  which  unfortunately  is  not  dateable, 
saw  this  most  clearly,  for  he  ridicules  the  idea  that 
sacrifices  are  gifts  of  food  for  the  deity,  a  notion  which 
continued  to  linger  in  the  Levitical  phrase  "the  food 
of  his  God."3  "Mine,"  he  makes  God  say,  "are  the 
cattle  on  a  thousand  hills  .  .  .  the  world  and  the  fulness 
thereof.    If  I  were  hungry  I  would  not  tell  thee."    In 

1  Micah  6:6-8.  This  passage,  probably,  must  be  dated  after  the  exile; 
the  writer  was  kindred  in  spirit  with  Deutero-Isaiah,  Job,  the  writer  of 
Jonah,  and  one  or  two  Psalmists. 

2  Ps.  50:7-15- 

3  Lev.  21 :  17,  21,  22  ;  cf.  Ezek.  41:22.  The  altar  as  the  table  of  Jah- 
veh;  Mai.  1:12-14;  Micah  6:6. 


288  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

the  thought  of  this  writer  the  gift-theory  of  sacrifice 
involves  a  humiliatingly  petty  conception  of  God's  per- 
son, power,  and  desires. 

It  is  natural  to  assume  that  the  view  of  sacrifice 
which  he  ridicules  was  uppermost  among  those  whom 
he  desired  to  reach.  In  that  case  his  failure  to  allude 
to  sacrifices  of  atonement  is  significant.  Was  the 
later  belief  that  "apart  from  shedding  of  blood  there 
is  no  remission"  of  sin  really  a  deep-seated  Old  Testa- 
ment idea,  as  the  writer  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
asserts,  or  is  it  the  offspring  of  that  priestly  ritual 
whose  authority  and  presuppositions  the  prophets  so 
strenuously  denied? 1 

The  answer  to  this  question  would  require  a  treatise 
by  itself.  The  subject  of  sacrifice  in  the  Old  Testament 
is  complicated,  and  has  too  often  been  treated  without 
appreciation  of  the  complex  tendencies  and  counter- 
tendencies  of  thought  and  practice  that  have  left  their 
record  in  Israel's  literature.    For  present  purposes  it 

1  A  curious  old  ceremonial,  described  in  Dt.  21 : 1-9,  has  been  used  to 
support  the  idea  of  penal  substitution.  But  only  a  precarious  argument 
can  be  based  upon  it.  The  priests,  who  are  mere  spectators,  have  been 
introduced  by  a  glossator  in  verse  5.  The  sacrifice  of  the  heifer,  which  is 
not  killed  by  effusion  of  blood,  is  clearly  intended  to  quiet  the  venge- 
ful activity  of  the  spirit  of  the  slain.  For  this  reason,  the  nearest  city, 
which  may  or  may  not  harbor  the  murderer,  must  be  ascertained,  be- 
cause it  would  be  the  most  likely  to  suffer.  If  any  penal  substitution  is 
involved,  it  is  of  more  interest  to  the  folklorist  than  to  the  theologian. 
Lev.  17:  11-13  introduces  the  idea  of  atonement  by  blood,  but  hardly 
through  penal  substitution.  Blood,  being  peculiarly  sacred  to  Jahveh, 
has  mysterious  lustral  qualities  and  its  use  is  attended  with  supernat- 
ural dangers.  The  attempted  explanation  of  the  rite  in  verse  lib  shows 
how  atonement  by  ritual  magic  is  beginning  to  be  invested  with  a  theo- 
logical meaning. 


RITUAL   RELIGION   REPUDIATED     289 

is  enough  to  know  that  at  least  one  Hebrew  thinker 
of  deep  religious  convictions  sums  up  prophetic 
teaching  by  explicitly  discarding  as  irrational  the 
thought  that  human,  animal,  or  vegetable  1  sacrifices 
can  atone  for  sins  committed.  "  Shall  I  give  my  first- 
born for  my  transgression,  the  fruit  of  my  body  for 
the  sin  of  my  soul?" 

The  sacrifice  of  the  first-born,  according  to  ancient 
notions  of  divine  requirements,  was  the  most  propitia- 
tory offering  that  could  be  made  to  the  deity.  If  that 
was  not  effectual,  how  much  less  so,  then,  would  be 
the  blood  of  calves  and  rams.  This  writer,  apparently, 
is  living  at  a  time  when  official  Jahvism  had  placed 
human  sacrifice  of  all  kinds  under  severe  disapproval. 
But  by  heightening  the  value  of  the  ceremonial  offer- 
ings to  the  utmost,  he  gives  point  to  his  conviction  that 
the  blood  of  no  sacrifice  whatsoever  can  wash  the  stain 
of  sin  from  the  human  soul.  Apparently  he  knows 
nothing  about  the  alleged  word  of  Jahveh,  "I  have 
given  [the  blood]  to  you  upon  the  altar  to  make  atone- 
ment for  your  souls."  2  Atonement  cannot  be  effected 
by  sacrifice,  the  performance  of  a  ritual,  for  that  would 
be  to  substitute  a  mechanical  act  for  repentance  and 
reform.  The  experience  of  divine  forgiveness  comes  to 

1  Olive  oil  was  anciently  used  in  propitiatory  and  expiatory  libations 
(Gen.  28:18;  Micah  6:7).  Lev.  5:11  permits  the  substitution  of  fine 
flour  for  two  turtle  doves  as  a  sin  offering.  Oil  and  flour,  as  in  domestic 
use,  were  mingled  in  the  meal  offering. 

2  Lev.  17: 11.  In  the  Lawof  Holiness  (chaps.  17-26)  to  which  this  pas- 
sage belongs,  all  blood  of  sacrifices  still  has  atoning  efficacy;  elsewhere  in 
the  Priests'  Code  special  sacrifices  of  atonement  are  provided. 


290  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT 

each  soul  only  through  its  own  moral  endeavor,  the 
fruit  of  repentance.1 

Do  the  pre-exilic  prophets  exhibit  any  tolerance  of 
the  cultus  at  all,  or  are  they  opposed  to  it  on  principle 
as  a  snare  and  a  delusion?  This  question  is  raised  by 
the  fact  that  Deuteronomy,  which  represents  a  com- 
promise between  priestly  and  prophetic  tendencies, 
retains  a  place  for  the  sacrificial  ritual.  If  the  prophets 
were  uncompromising  radicals,  bent  on  eliminating 
sacrifice  altogether,  why  did  they  permit  its  authoriza- 
tion in  the  Deuteronomic  programme  of  reform?  One 
might  reply  that  Amos,  Hosea,  Isaiah,  and  Micah 
were  no  longer  living  when  Deuteronomy  was  drawn 
up,  and  therefore  had  no  opportunity  to  approve  or 
reject  its  provisions;  that  Deuteronomy  only  medi- 
ately embodies  prophetic  ideals,  but  was  directly  in- 
fluenced by  men  of  priestly  temperament;  and  that 
Jeremiah,  who  continued  the  anti-ritualistic  traditions 
of  the  earlier  prophets,  did  remain  an  uncompro- 
mising opponent  even  of  the  reformed  ritual  of  Deu- 
teronomy. 

Such  a  reply  would  undoubtedly  contain  the  sub- 
stantial truth.  One  may  add  further  that  these  proph- 
ets never  speak  of  the  sacrificial  ritual  as  an  obligatory 
function,  and  never  propose  to  substitute  a  new  or 
modified  ritual  for  the  one  they  condemn.  Sacrifices 
have  no  organic  place  in  the  religion  of  the  proph- 
ets.   Even  Hosea,  when  he  mentions  the  cessation  of 

1  Micah  6:8. 


RITUAL   RELIGION   REPUDIATED     291 

sacrifices  among  the  mournful  changes  which  will  be 
consequent  upon  the  deportation  of  his  countrymen, 
clearly  intends  to  impress  them  with  the  fact  that  what 
they  consider  most  important  has  no  weight  at  all 
with  Jahveh.1 

Yet  the  tone  of  personal  regret  in  which  he  speaks, 
the  absence  of  any  organized  movement  to  abolish 
sacrifices  altogether,  and  the  fact  that  the  Deutero- 
nomic  reform  of  the  cultus  received  sympathy  and  sup- 
port in  prophetic  circles,  are  points  that  call  for  expla- 
nation. It  must  be  sought  in  the  double  character  of 
the  system.  The  sacrificial  cultus  was  a  social  as  well 
as  a  religious  institution.  Divested  of  its  ritual  sig- 
nificance, there  remained  in  it  much  that  might  con- 
tribute to  the  comfort  and  happiness  of  the  people. 
Since  all  slaughtering  of  animals  was  in  itself  a  sacri- 
ficial act  among  the  Hebrews,  no  meat  could  properly 
be  eaten  except  in  ritual  connections.  Therefore  every 
sacrifice  involved  a  feast,  and  no  feast  could  be  pro- 
vided without  a  sacrifice.  On  the  designated  festal 
days  the  whole  countryside  streamed  to  the  sanctuary. 
Crowds  arrayed  in  gay  attire  came  with  music  and 
song,  leading  the  sacrificial  victims  and  bringing  with 
them  bread  and  wine  to  set  forth  the  feast.  With  open- 
handed  hospitality  guests  were  made  welcome  at  the 

1  Hos.  3:4  (Guthe,  HSAT),  and  Is.  19:21, are  in  all  probability  addi- 
tions by  a  later  hand  and  therefore  do  not  figure  in  this  connection.  Jer. 
17:26,  is  an  editorial  addition,  like  the  last  two  verses  of  Psalm  51.  Jer. 
33: 18,  is  part  of  a  section  which  is  missing  in  the  LXX.  It  certainly  did 
not  flow  out  of  the  pen  or  thought  of  Jeremiah. 


292  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

banquet  where  rich  and  poor  made  merry  together  and 
so  "rejoiced  before  Jahveh."  1 

The  prophets  may  well  have  hesitated  before  at- 
tempting to  deprive  the  people  of  this  source  of  com- 
mon joys.  Could  superstitious  faith  in  the  objective 
efficacy  of  such  sacrifices  as  means  of  atonement 
for  sin,  or  gifts  of  appeasement,  be  ethically  purified 
and  yet  leave  the  people  the  social  benefits  of  the  in- 
stitution? Amos  and  Isaiah  must  have  asked  them- 
selves that  question  even  while,  as  Jahveh's  spokesmen, 
they  were  saying:  "I  hate,  I  despise  your  [sacrificial] 
feasts,  and  will  not  smell  [the  appetizing  savor  of]  your 
festal  assemblies."  It  was  the  prospective  loss,  through 
exile,  of  Israel's  keenest  joys,  deeply  rooted  about 
Jahveh's  altars,  that  stirred  the  regret  of  Hosea  when 
he  said:  "They  shall  no  longer  pour  out  wine  for 
Jahveh,  nor  prepare  their  sacrifices  for  him.  Like  the 
bread  of  mourning  shall  their  food  be;  all  who  eat 
thereof  shall  be  [ritually]  defiled ;  for  their  bread  shall 
be  only  for  their  appetite;  it  shall  not  come  into  the 
house  of  Jahveh."  2  It  seems  obvious  that  the  prophet 
is  not  concerned  here  with  the  expiatory  uses  of  sacri- 
fice, but  with  the  profound  and  mournful  changes 

1  Cf.  I  Sam.  9:11-24;  Is.  30:29;  28:7,  8;  Hos.  2:13.  Cf.  also  W.  R. 
Smith,  Religion  of  the  Semites,  p.  254/. 

2  Hos.  9:4.  "  The  bread  of  mourning  "  is  a  reference  to  an  ancient  and 
widespread  superstition  according  to  which  everything  connected  with 
a  dead  person  is  taboo  for  a  given  period.  Cf.  Num.  19: 14;  Jer.  16:7;  Dt. 
26: 14.  To  the  ancient  Hebrews  all  food  in  a  foreign  land  would  have  been 
taboo:  (1)  because  of  the  presence  and  rule  of  foreign  gods;  (2)  because 
neither  meat,  nor  fruits  and  cereals,  could  have  the  customary  sanction 
of  the  sacrificial  ritual. 


RITUAL   RELIGION   REPUDIATED    293 

which  their  cessation  would  effect  in  the  social  customs 
of  the  people. 

But  there  is  another,  even  more  distinctly  humanita- 
rian, reason  why  the  prophets  may  have  shrunk  from 
advocating  so  radical  a  step  as  the  entire  abolition  of 
sacrifices.  A  considerable  percentage  of  the  most  in- 
fluential part  of  the  population,  the  communities  of 
professional  prophets  and  the  priesthood,  charged 
among  other  things  with  the  administration  of  civil 
justice,  was  in  some  measure  dependent  for  its  living 
upon  the  sacrificial  system.  In  modern  phrase,  out  of 
the  worshippers'  offerings  came  the  judges'  and  min- 
isters' salaries. 

It  seems  certain  that  the  firstlings  of  the  flock,  which 
the  Jahvist  *  represents  God  as  claiming  for  himself, 
went  partly  to  the  support  of  the  priests.  The  same 
explanation  applies  to  the  command,  "The  first  of 
the  first-fruits  of  thy  ground  thou  shalt  bring  unto  the 
house  of  Jahveh  thy  God."  At  first  the  function  of  the 
priest  was  to  attend  to  the  oracle.  Heads  of  families 
did  the  sacrificing.  Much  frequented  sanctuaries  must 
have  required  the  priest's  services,  also,  as  guardian 
and  overseer.  This  service  naturally  became  the  basis 
of  his  claim  to  support  out  of  the  sacrificial  offerings. 
Thus  giving  to  God  was  in  a  fair  way  to  become  a 
euphemism  for  giving  to  the  priest. 

It  is  not  surprising,  therefore,  to  find  among  the 
earliest  ritual  regulations,  recorded  by  the  Jahvist,  one 

1  Ex.  34: 19,  20. 


294  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

which  makes  Jahveh  say:  "None  shall  appear  before 
me  empty.  .  .  .  Three  times  in  the  year  shall  all  thy 
males  appear  before  the  Lord  Jahveh,  the  God  of 
Israel."  1  To  "appear  before"  God  was  the  popular 
way  of  describing  a  visit  to  the  sanctuary  where  the 
ancient  Hebrew  believed  his  deity  dwelt  and  gave 
audience.  Since  "to  serve  Jahveh"  meant  nothing 
currently  except  to  offer  sacrifice,2  each  was  expected 
to  bring  his  sacrificial  offerings.  The  larger  sanctuaries 
had  their  priesthoods,  and  these  necessarily  had  a  deep 
interest  in  seeing  to  it  that  worshippers  did  not  come 
empty-handed. 

Even  the  best  human  nature  poured  into  the  sacer- 
dotal mould  would  find  it  difficult  to  resist  the  tempta- 
tions which  such  a  system  presented.  The  more  occa- 
sions the  priests  could  find  for  imposing  sacrificial  fines 
the  more  profit  to  themselves.  Alleged  transgressions 
of  ritual  regulations  probably  were  favorite  pretexts 
for  plucking  the  people.  Hosea  bitterly  complains: 
"They  feed  on  the  sin  of  my  people,  and  hunger  after 
their  iniquity."  3 

The  second  chapter  of  the  first  book  of  Samuel  gives 
a  graphic  account  of  how  the  priests  of  Shiloh  dis- 
regarded the  customary  regulations  in  order  to  satisfy 
their  greed.  "They  cared  not  for  Jahveh  nor  for  what 
was  the  customary  portion  of  the  priest  from  the 
people.4  Whenever  any  one  sacrificed,  the  servant  of 

i  Ex.  34:20,  23.  2  Cf.  II  Sam.  15:8.  3  Hos.  4:8. 

«  I  Sam.  2: 13/.  Most  Biblical  scholars  favor  this  reading. 


RITUAL   RELIGION   REPUDIATED    295 

the  priest  came,  while  the  flesh  was  still  boiling,  with  a 
three-pronged  fork  in  his  hand;  and  he  struck  it  into 
the  kettle,  or  caldron,  or  pot;  and  whatever  the  fork 
brought  up  the  priest  took  for  himself.  So  they  did  in 
Shiloh  unto  all  the  Israelites  that  came  thither.  Even 
before  they  burned  the  fat  the  priest's  servant  came, 
and  said  to  the  man  that  sacrificed,  '  Give  flesh  to  roast 
for  the  priest;  for  he  will  not  have  boiled  flesh  of  thee, 
but  raw.'  And,  if  the  man  replied, '  Surely  the  fat 1  must 
be  burned  first,  and  thereafter  thou  mayest  take  what- 
ever thou  pleasest,'  then  he  would  say,  'Nay,  but  thou 
shalt  give  it  to  me  now;  and  if  not,  I  will  take  it  by 
force."' 

Probably  every  sanctuary  had  originally  its  own 
regulations  regarding  the  portion  that  belonged  to  the 
priests.2  The  shewbread  and  cereal  offerings  seem  to 
have  been  their  portion  from  the  earliest  times.  But 
the  kinds  of  offerings  which  the  priests  might  share 
increased  in  number  as  time  went  on,  and  they  obtained 
also  larger  and  larger  portions  for  themselves.    The 

1  The  fat  was  regarded  as  Jahveh's  portion.  The  narrator  evidently 
condemns  the  practice  of  the  priests  at  Shiloh  because  a  different  custom 
prevailed  in  his  time.  But  it  is  not  at  all  improbable  that  he  is  here  re- 
cording the  survival  of  an  old  sacerdotal  custom  at  Shiloh  which  may 
have  been  quite  in  accord  with  Canaanite  law.  In  later  times,  at  Jeru- 
salem, specified  portions  of  the  sacrifice  belonged  to  the  priest.  Cf.  Dt. 
18:3;  Lev.  7:34. 

2  Contrary  to  probability  and  analogy  is  the  statement  of  Wellhausen 
(Prolegomena,  6th  ed.,  p.  147)  that  the  priest,  when  there  was  one,  was 
allowed  to  participate  in  some  way  in  the  sacrificial  meal,  but  that  he 
does  not  seem  to  have  had  a  legitimate  claim  to  specified  perquisites  of 
meat.  The  proper  reading  of  I  Sam.  2 :  12,  13,  according  to  the  Greek  and 
Syriac  versions  is,  "The  sons  of  Eli  .  .  .  respected  not  Jahveh  nor  the 
right  of  the  priest  from  the  people."  This  shows  that  something  was  due 
to  the  priest  from  the  sacrificer. 


296  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

question  to  what  extent  a  serious,  though  mistaken, 
religious  purpose  may  have  been  behind  the  priest- 
hood's growing  demands  for  dignity  and  emoluments 
cannot  concern  us  here.  What  does  concern  us  is  the 
fact  that  their  maintenance  came  increasingly  from  the 
sacrificial  system,  and  that  the  prophets  charge  them 
with  abuse  of  this  prerogative. 

The  Deuteronomist,  we  may  assume,  merely  formu- 
lated what  was  substantially  ancient  practice,  when  he 
said  that  the  priests  "shall  eat  the  fire-offerings  of 
Jahveh  and  his  inheritance.  .  .  .  This  shall  be  the 
priests'  due  from  the  people,  from  them  that  offer  a 
sacrifice,  whether  it  be  of  ox  or  sheep,  that  they  shall 
give  unto  the  priest  the  shoulder  and  the  two  cheeks 
and  the  maw.  The  first-fruits  of  thy  grain,  of  thy  new 
wine,  and  of  thine  oil,  and  the  first  of  the  fleece  of  thy 
sheep,  shalt  thou  give  to  him."1  Ezekiel,  himself  a 
priest,  expressly  included  among  the  sacerdotal  per- 
quisites the  meal  offering,  sin  offering,  trespass  offer- 
ing, and  everything  that  had  been  put  under  the  ban.2 

At  a  later  period  the  Priests'  Code  greatly  increased 
these  requirements  by  specifying  as  the  Levites'  and 
priests'  portion,  the  tithes,  and  the  breast  and  the  right 
hind  leg  of  all  sacrificial  victims;3  in  order  to  make  sure 
of  this  as  an  addition  to  the  Deuteronomic  requirement, 
the  latter  was  explained  as  referring  to  the  priests' 
share  of  all  secular  slaughter  of  animals  for  food.  The 
tendency  in  all  this  is  revealed  by  the  ultimate  exten- 

1  Dt.  18:3,  4  2  Ezek.  44:29,  30.  3  Lev.  7  =  31-34- 


RITUAL   RELIGION   REPUDIATED    297 

sion  of  sacerdotal  demands  beyond  all  reasonable 
possibility  of  realization,  as  when  the  latest  additions 
of  P  provide  for  the  imposition  of  an  additional  tithe 
upon  flocks  and  herds,  and  assign  to  the  hierarchy 
forty-eight  cities  with  a  girdle  of  pasture-lands  half 
a  mile  in  diameter  around  each  one.1  "And  Jahveh 
spake  unto  Moses"  is  the  pious  form  in  which  these 
ritual  exactions  are  levied. 

The  priestly  revenues,  therefore,  amounted  in  later 
times,  at  least,  to  a  very  considerable  tax  upon  the 
people,  levied  by  means  of  the  sacrificial  system.  In 
asserting  that  God  himself  instituted  the  system,  and 
that  his  favor  was  dependent  upon  the  scrupulous 
observance  of  the  ritual  ordinances,  the  priesthood  was 
at  the  same  time  enforcing  its  claims  to  material  sup- 
port with  the  alleged  authority  of  a  divine  command. 

The  prophets  who  had  denied  that  God  had  insti- 
tuted sacrifices,  or  could  be  propitiated  by  means  of 
them,  were  condemning  an  economic  abuse  as  well  as  a 
religious  superstition.  These  uncompromising  preach- 
ers of  morality  were  at  the  same  time  undermining  the 
authority  of  the  priests  and  allied  false  prophets  to  rob 
the  people  in  the  name  of  God.  "If  they  have  any- 
thing to  bite,  they  proclaim  prosperity;  but  they 
declare  holy  war  against  any  one  who  does  not  put 
something  into  their  mouths."  2  So  Micah  character- 
izes those  of  his  own  day.  Sacerdotal  greed  had  seen  its 
advantage  and  was  pushing  it  farther  by  all  the  means 

1  Lev.  27:32  and  Num.  35: 1-8.  '  Micah  3:5;  cf.  3:4. 


298  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

in  its  power,  chief  among  them  being  the  profitable 
delusion  that  sacrifices  possess  the  magic  efficacy  of 
atoning  for  sin,  and  securing  prosperity.  By  calling  a 
halt  upon  the  propagation  of  this  doctrine,  men  like 
Amos,  Isaiah,  Micah,  and  Jeremiah  aroused  the  lasting 
hatred  of  the  priests  and  professional  prophets  —  a 
hatred  inspired  as  much  by  the  bread-instinct  as  by 
differences  of  theological  belief. 

Although  Amos  had  denounced  sacrifices  as  worth- 
less, Amaziah  the  priest  of  Bethel  assumes  that  he, 
like  himself,  "eats  bread"  obtained  through  the  sys- 
tem. "O  thou  seer,"  said  he,  "flee  thou  away  into  the 
land  of  Judah,  and  there  eat  bread,  and  prophecy 
there."  But  the  prophet  resents  the  implication  that 
he  is  a  beneficiary  of  the  sacrifices  he  has  denounced; 
that  he  is  pulling  down  his  own  roof- tree.  "I  am  no 
[professional]  prophet,"  he  replies,  "neither  am  I  a 
member  of  a  prophet's  guild ;  but  I  am  a  herdsman,  and 
a  dresser  of  sycomore  trees."  His  moral  convictions 
are  untainted  by  fear  or  self-interest.  He  is  independ- 
ent of  the  priestly  sources  of  support. 

But  it  will  be  granted  that,  however  bad  the  abuses 
of  the  system  may  have  been,  there  was  something  to 
be  said  for  its  retention  provided  it  could  be  purified 
and  ethicized.  Then  it  might  continue  to  cheer  the 
lives  of  the  common  people  who  wished  to  "rejoice 
before  Jahveh"  at  the  stated  sacrificial  feasts,  and  it 
would  continue  to  provide  sustenance  for  the  official 
representatives  of  religion  who  were  at  the  same  time 


RITUAL   RELIGION   REPUDIATED    299 

the  ministers  of  justice.1  May  it  not  have  been  con- 
siderations like  these  that  brought  about  the  com- 
promise between  prophetic  and  priestly  ideals  by  which 
sacrifice  found  a  place  in  Deuteronomy? 

By  restricting  the  cultus  to  the  sanctuary  at  Jerusa- 
lem the  Deuteronomist  made  it  possible  and  necessary 
to  deprive  the  slaughter  of  animals  for  food  of  its  sacri- 
ficial significance.  The  great  reduction  of  sacrifices 
which  this  involved  meant  a  corresponding  reduction 
of  opportunities  for  the  exaction  of  priestly  perquisites. 
The  central  sanctuary  was  given  the  monopoly  of 
priestly  revenues,  out  of  which,  however,  all  the  dis- 
possessed priests  of  the  abolished  sanctuaries  were  to 
"have  like  portions  to  eat."2  This  latter  provision, 
being  in  the  nature  of  a  check  upon  the  priests  at 

1  The  prospective  removal  of  the  priests  from  the  local  sanctuaries  to 
Jerusalem  requires  new  provision  for  the  administration  of  justice  in  the 
provinces.  Hence  D  provides  for  the  appointment  of  judges  and  notaries 
(Dt.  16: 18)  to  be  chosen  doubtless  from  among  the  "elders"  of  the  cit- 
ies and  country  communities  (Dt.  19:12;  Ex.  18).  But  difficult  cases 
are  still  to  be  adjudicated  by  the  priests  at  Jerusalem  (Dt.  17:8  ff.). 
This  explains  why  Dt.  19: 15-21,  mentions  the  presence  of  judges,  but 
lets  the  priests  discharge  the  judicial  functions.  The  mention  of  "the 
judge"  in  Dt.  17:9,  12,  is  shown  to  be  a  gloss  by  its  position  in  the  text. 
Cf.  Marti,  HSAT,  p.  269. 

2  Cf .  Dt.  18:8.  This  of  course  refers  to  the  dues  received  by  the  priests 
from  the  people.  According  to  II  Kings  23:9,  the  dispossessed  priests 
were,  in  spite  of  Deuteronomy,  not  permitted  to  officiate  at  Jerusalem. 
The  priests  of  the  latter  sanctuary,  forming  a  more  or  less  close  corpora- 
tion, refused  to  share  their  privileges.  The  statement  that  "the  priests 
of  the  high  places"  were  permitted  a  livelihood  of  "unleavened  bread" 
indicates  that  they  were  excluded  from  all  but  an  insignificant  share  in 
the  altar  dues.  Since  Plater  (Num.  18: 19-20;  18:21 /.)  assigns  the  altar 
dues  to  the  Jerusalem  priesthood  alone,  as  distinct  from  the  others  who 
now  appear  merely  as  "Levites"  under  the  distinction  introduced  by 
Ezekiel,  we  may  safely  assume  that  P  gives  the  ex  post  facto  recognition 
of  a  practice  that  arose  immediately  after  Josiah's  reformation. 


3oo  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

Jerusalem  and  promptly  disregarded  by  them,  is  best 
explained  as  of  prophetic  origin.  Its  purpose  was  to 
preserve  a  livelihood  for  a  large  and  important  class  of 
persons  in  the  community.  "The  Levite  that  is  within 
thy  gates,  thou  shalt  not  forsake  him,"  *  is  the  burden 
of  the  Deuteronomist's  plea.  Strange  that  what  was 
asked  in  charity  for  the  entire  clergy  of  Israel,  was 
promptly  appropriated  and  enlarged  as  a  legal  claim 
by  the  local  priesthood  of  the  chosen  sanctuary! 
Ezekiel's  move  to  unfrock  the  priests  from  the  country 
sanctuaries  does  not  look  well  in  this  connection.  It 
disposed  of  unwelcome  competitors. 

The  retention  of  the  sacrificial  ritual  in  Deuteron- 
omy, may,  therefore,  be  explained  on  the  basis  of  the 
humanitarian  reasons  set  forth  above.  The  Deuteron- 
omist's failure  to  attach  any  atoning  value  to  sacrifice 
as  such  then  becomes  especially  significant.  The  omis- 
sion is  strong  evidence  of  the  prophetic  point  of  view 
in  Deuteronomy.  The  repudiation  of  sacrifice  as  a 
divine  institution  involves  repudiation  of  the  theory  of 
atonement  by  sacrifice.  Let  any  one  compare  the  ritual 
portions  of  Deuteronomy  and  Leviticus  and  note  the 
gulf  that  yawns  between  their  respective  conceptions 
of  sacrifice.  The  former,  reflecting  the  ethical  stand- 
ards of  the  prophets  in  its  solicitude  for  the  welfare  of 
certain  classes  of  the  Hebrew  community,  makes  good 

1  Dt.  14:27.  The  Deuteronomist's  solicitude  on  behalf  of  the  "Levite" 
need  not  indicate  that  priests  were  classed  among  the  poor,  but  rather  a 
desire  to  lighten  the  economic  blow  which  disestablishment  will  deal 
them.  Possessors  of "  patrimony  "  (Dt.  18:8)  are  not  to  be  reckoned  poor. 


RITUAL   RELIGION   REPUDIATED    301 

works  the  condition  of  favor  with  God,  whereas  the 
latter  substitutes  a  system  of  sacrificial  fines  and  the 
magic  mummery  of  a  supposedly  "holy"  ritual.  But 
it  must  be  admitted  that  the  very  act  of  providing  for 
a  reform  of  the  cultus  appeared  to  attach  to  the  sacri- 
ficial system  more  than  social-economic  importance. 
Interested  circles  immediately  drew  the  inference  that 
the  cultus  was  the  vital  thing  in  religion.  The  incipient 
rift  between  prophetic  and  priestly  religion  bridged  tem- 
porarily by  Deuteronomy,  soon  widened  into  a  chasm. 

How  Deuteronomy  was  wrested  to  serve  the  pur- 
poses of  the  sacerdotal  party  at  Jerusalen  and  how 
Jeremiah  resisted  the  legalism  which  it  set  on  foot  is 
best  told  in  another  connection.  It  must  suffice  to  call 
attention  here  only  to  his  utter  repudiation  of  sacrifice 
as  a  valid  religious  function.  It  was  in  him  that  the 
free  moral  spirit  of  the  pre-exilic  prophets  made  its  last 
determined  stand  against  the  bondage  of  ritual  forms 
and  a  written  law. 

Nothing  reveals  more  clearly  the  strength  of  the 
rising  sacerdotalism  opposed  to  Jeremiah  than  the 
writings  of  his  contemporary  Ezekiel.  In  him  one 
observes  a  return  to  earlier  and  cruder  views  of  religion 
in  which  ceremonial  plays  the  leading  part.  But  the 
simple  cult  of  earlier  days  is  now  subjected  to  a  ritual 
finesse  which  only  the  priest  can  exercise  at  one  specified 
place,  and  the  worshipper  is  led  to  believe  that 
scrupulous  compliance  with  ritual  requirements  is 
necessary  to  secure  and  preserve  a  state  of  "holiness." 


302  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

It  is  not  surprising,  therefore,  that  Ezekiel  in  his 
programme  of  restoration  re-attaches  to  sacrifice  the 
false  importance  which  his  illustrious  predecessors  had 
denied  and  denounced.  Priestly  privileges  and  ritual 
acts  occupy  the  foreground  in  his  thoughts  of  reform. 
Where  Amos,  Hosea,  Isaiah,  and  Jeremiah  had  made 
purity  of  life  the  primary  religious  requirement,  Eze- 
kiel so  exaggerates  Jahveh's  interest  in  the  correct 
performance  of  the  ritual  that  ethical  considerations 
become  markedly  secondary.  His  introduction  of  a  dis- 
tinction between  "the  Levites  that  went  far  from  me" 
and  "the  priests  the  Levites,  the  sons  of  Zadok,"  of 
whom  he  was  one,  had  the  double  effect  of  making  the 
latter  the  sole  custodians  of  the  sacrificial  ritual  and 
the  exclusive  recipients  of  the  priestly  revenues.  This 
act  constitutes  a  transgression  both  of  the  letter  and 
of  the  spirit  of  Deuteronomy,  and  shows  how  lightly 
the  Zadokite  priesthood  regarded  the  authority  of 
the  new  law  when  it  did  not  minister  to  their  own 
interests. 

We  have  seen  that  the  abolition  of  all  sanctuaries  of 
Jahveh  outside  of  Jerusalem  necessarily  involved  a  dis- 
tinction between  the  priests  of  the  proscribed  sanctua- 
ries, who  lost  their  livelihood,  and  those  who  were  at- 
tached to  the  chosen  sanctuary.  The  Deuteronomist 
tacitly  credits  them  all  with  equal  claims  to  support  by 
the  sacrificial  revenues,  and  so  provides  for  the  equal 
maintenance  of  all  at  the  central  sanctuary.  But  the 
brief  interval  between  621  and  586  B.C.  was  sufficient 


RITUAL   RELIGION   REPUDIATED    303 

to  prove  the  centralization  of  the  entire  Judean  priest- 
hood impracticable  under  the  conditions  set  forth  by 
Deuteronomy.  The  priests  at  Jerusalem  refused  to 
admit  the  evicted  priests  to  a  share  in  their  enhanced 
importance  and  privileges.  Ezekiel  adds  injustice  to 
injury  by  proposing  in  his  programme  of  restoration 
that  the  latter  shall  be  degraded  to  the  menial  services 
of  the  new  temple  as  a  penalty  for  not  having  observed 
the  Deuteronomic  law  of  the  one  sanctuary.  This  attempt 
to  make  out  a  case  against  unwelcome  competitors,  it 
should  be  observed,  rests  upon  the  false  assumption 
that  the  Deuteronomic  law  of  the  one  sanctuary  was 
actually  promulgated  by  Moses,  and  that  it  had  been 
obeyed  only  by  the  priests  at  Jerusalem. 

But  how  could  Moses  lay  down  a  law  requiring  the 
Israelites  to  worship  at  only  one  sanctuary  when  they 
settled  in  Palestine,  and  at  the  same  time  make  pro- 
vision for  the  victims  of  its  enforcement  six  hundred 
years  later?  The  fact  that  Deuteronomy  presupposes 
the  existence  of  numerous  illegitimate  sanctuaries1  of 
Jahveh  in  Palestine,  an  inconceivable  assumption  for 
the  time  of  Moses,  when  not  even  the  one  legitimate 
sanctuary  had  been  chosen,  naively  betrays  the  real 
period  and  purpose  of  the  writer.  The  provision  for  the 
sale  of  the  evicted  priests'  patrimony  pending  their 

1  Local  sanctuaries  of  Jahveh,  among  others,  are  meant  by  "the 
places  where  the  nations  .  .  .  served  their  gods"  (Dt.  12:2).  The  many 
local  shrines,  Bethel,  Gibeon,  Shechem,  etc.,  mentioned  in  the  historical 
books  are  here  presented  as  heathenish.  But  down  to  the  time  of  Josiah 
they  were  frequented  as  perfectly  legitimate  shrines  of  Jahveh  under  the 
rule  laid  down  in  Ex.  20: 24. 


304  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

removal  to  "the  place  which  Jahveh  .  .  .  shall  choose," 
and  the  concession  of  their  right  of  maintenance  there, 
were  not  born  of  a  desire  to  punish  a  neglect,  but  to 
indemnify  for  an  innovation.  What  is  more,  the  social 
and  religious  conditions  presupposed  by  this  com- 
pensatory legislation  are  not  those  of  the  time  of  Moses, 
but  of  a  much  later  age.  In  the  light  of  these  facts  it  is 
deeply  significant  that  Deuteronomy  regards  as  victims 
of  a  reform  those  whom  Ezekiel  treats  as  offenders 
against  a  law. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  Ezekiel  violates  the  facts 
of  history  as  well  as  the  spirit  of  Deuteronomy  when  he 
penalizes  and  brands  with  reproach  "the  Levites  that 
went  far  from  me  [Jahveh]."1  That  he  does  it  know- 
ingly cannot  be  asserted.  Nevertheless  interesting 
questions  are  raised  by  the  fact  that  this  unjust  judg- 
ment, supported  by  an  appeal  to  a  fictitious  construc- 
tion of  history,  is  introduced  by  "Thus  saith  the  Lord 
Jahveh."2  What  is  equally  unjustifiable,  he  and  his 
colleagues  of  the  Jerusalem  priesthood  claim  quite  un- 
deserved credit  for  conformity  with  a  law  which,  when 
enacted,  found  them  connected  with  the  sanctuary  at 
Jerusalem  just  as  other  priests  happened  to  be  attached 
to  other  sanctuaries.  With  equal  propriety  might  a 
man  claim  credit  for  having  been  born  white  when  he 
finds  himself  amid  surroundings  where  it  is  a  disad- 
vantage to  be  black.  Before  621  B.C.  it  was  nothing 
praiseworthy  to  be  connected  with  the  Jerusalem  sanc- 

1  Ezek.  44: 10/.  2  Ezek.  44: 9. 


RITUAL   RELIGION   REPUDIATED     305 

tuary ;  neither  was  it  a  punishable  offence  to  officiate  at 
some  other  "high  place." 

For  purposes  of  illustration  let  us  imagine  a  roughly 
analogous  case.  Suppose  a  law  were  passed  in  a  given 
State  providing  that  no  man  shall  be  entitled  to  prac- 
tise medicine  unless  his  degree  has  been  conferred  by 
the  State  university.  To  compensate  for  the  hardship 
which  this  would  work  upon  practising  holders  of 
degrees  from  other  schools,  the  law  provides  that  such 
practitioners  shall  receive  appointments  in  connection 
with  a  great  hospital  supported  by  the  State.  Although 
the  newcomers  are  to  enjoy  the  same  rights  and  per- 
quisites as  the  doctors  already  there,  friction  arises 
between  them.  The  latter  refuse  to  concede  to  the 
former  an  equality  of  privileges  and  their  share  of  the 
perquisites. 

After  a  lapse  of  forty-five  years,  during  which  nearly 
all  who  were  originally  affected  by  the  change  have 
died,  a  great  political  catastrophe  ensues,  involving 
the  destruction  of  the  hospital.  Anticipating  its 
ultimate  reestablishment,  one  of  the  university-bred 
doctors  proposes  that  under  the  terms  of  reorganiza- 
tion all  who  do  not  hold  a  medical  degree  from  the 
university,  and  their  descendants,  shall  henceforward 
not  be  permitted  to  rise  above  the  rank  and  work  of 
nurses.  The  reason  he  gives  for  this  arbitrary  procedure 
is  that  they  failed  to  comply  with  the  law  which  pro- 
vides that  only  medical  graduates  of  the  State  uni- 
versity shall  practise  medicine.    He  ignores  the  fact 


3o6  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

that  since  they  obtained  their  medical  education  before 
the  law  was  enacted  their  choice  could  not  justly  be 
judged  by  it.  Their  misfortune,  recognized  by  com- 
pensation in  the  original  law,  is  under  the  new  con- 
struction penalized  as  a  misdemeanor,  and  the  bene- 
ficiaries of  the  law  make  a  virtue  of  the  accident  that 
found  them  university-bred  when  the  law  was  passed. 

There  is  no  good  reason  for  impugning  the  motives 
of  Ezekiel,  but  his  conception  of  religion  in  this  respect 
is  fundamentally  false.  It  involves  reassertion  of  the 
intrinsic  value  of  sacrifices,  long  ago  denied  by  the 
greater  pre-exilic  prophets.  He  claims  divine  authority 
for  what  they  had  vehemently  denounced  by  the  same 
token.  For  when  he  alleges  a  "Thus  saith  the  Lord" 
for  the  exclusion  of  the  "Levites"  from  the  higher 
ritual  functions  and  makes  Jahveh  say  that  Zadokite 
priests  alone  "shall  stand  before  me  to  offer  unto  me 
the  fat  and  the  blood,"  he  implies  on  the  part  of  God  a 
vital  interest  in  sacrifice  and  ceremonial.  In  so  far,  at 
least,  he  degraded  the  conception  of  God  set  forth  by 
Jeremiah  and  his  predecessors,  and  initiated  that 
priestly  misdevelopment  of  Hebrew  religion  which 
became  completely  dominant  under  Ezra,  and  later 
proved  a  serious  obstacle  in  the  path  of  Jesus. 

One  may  fitly  make  the  point,  also,  that  the  above- 
mentioned  religious  ideals  of  Ezekiel  are  morally  dis- 
credited by  the  means  he  employed  to  realize  them. 
Sincerity  alone  does  not  make  right.  There  doubtless 
were  many  besides  Ezekiel  in  the  growing  priestly 


RITUAL  RELIGION   REPUDIATED    307 

party  who  sincerely  believed  that  Israel's  political 
downfall  was  a  divine  punishment  for  failure  to  con- 
fine worship  to  one  sanctuary  and  to  guard  the  "holi- 
ness," i.e.,  ceremonial  purity,  of  the  ritual  and  the 
temple.  It  lay  in  the  nature  of  the  Deuteronomic 
reform,  and  the  importance  it  attached  to  legitimacy 
of  place  and  ritual,  to  foster  such  views.  But  the  fact 
remains  that  Ezekiel  indicted  and  penalized  the 
"Levites"  on  a  charge  framed  out  of  a  historical  fic- 
tion; that  their  degradation  to  menial  rank  enhanced 
the  power  and  income  of  the  Zadokite  priesthood ;  and 
that  he  gave  a  set-back  to  the  best  prophetic  traditions 
by  depicting  Jahveh  as  a  jealous  guardian  of  the  sanc- 
tity of  the  sacrificial  cult.  By  uniting  a  false  view  of 
Hebrew  history  with  a  misconception  of  the  essential 
elements  of  Hebrew  religion  he  conjured  up,  in  this 
view  of  sacrifice,  an  idea  of  God  which,  however  true 
he  may  have  believed  it  to  be,  was  profoundly  and 
banefully  erroneous. 

If  this  judgment  seems  harsh,  it  is  necessary  only  to 
point  to  the  evils  of  legalism  and  Levitical  formalism 
which,  for  centuries,  found  their  stronghold  in  his 
thought,  and  filled  with  bitter  conflict  the  days  of 
Jesus.  Fortunately  there  were  other  aspects  of  his 
activity  that  were  more  admirable.  But  we  must  post- 
pone to  a  later  volume  a  complete  consideration  of  his 
work  and  that  of  the  great  leaders  whose  beacon- 
fires  lit  up  the  troubled  times  between  Cyrus  and 
Augustus. 


3o8  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

We  have  now  reached  that  great  crisis  in  Israel's 
history  and  religion  which  was  brought  about  by  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  by  the  Babylonian  exile. 
A  new  environment,  new  social  forces,  new  ideas,  a  re- 
valuation of  the  past,  a  re-furnishment  of  the  future 
with  the  lure  of  more  spiritual  ideals  —  all  these  bring 
about  the  dissolution  of  the  old  order.  But  the  great 
prophetic  ideas  lived  on  and  became  the  dynamic  of  a 
new  order. 

If  we  have  succeeded  at  all  in  giving  the  reader  an 
idea  of  the  great  development  of  ideas  and  customs  in 
Israel  during  the  centuries  that  lie  between  Samuel  and 
the  exile,  it  is  not  necessary  to  point  out  that  the  dog- 
matic view  of  the  Bible,  quoted  at  the  beginning  of  the 
volume,  is  impaired  beyond  recovery.  In  the  face  of 
such  evidence  the  assertion  that  "the  Scriptures  of  the 
Old  and  New  Testaments  are  without  error  or  mis- 
statement in  their  moral  and  spiritual  teachings  and 
record  of  historical  facts,"  is  to  create  that  serious 
situation  in  which  faith  and  truth  part  company. 

However,  the  faith  which  is  abandoned  on  these 
terms  is  no  longer  faith,  but  superstition.  What  is 
more,  it  is  a  very  harmful  superstition,  for  in  the  minds 
of  many  it  creates  the  mistaken  impression  that  they 
must  choose  between  their  religious  faith  and  their 
loyalty  to  the  truth.  The  saddest  aspect  of  the  matter 
is  that  armies  of  young  people,  trained  in  schools  and 
colleges  to  think  true  to  evidence,  resolve  the  fictitious 


RITUAL   RELIGION   REPUDIATED    309 

dilemma  in  favor  of  unbelief.  And  yet  their  choice  is 
a  moral  choice,  because  they  prefer  truth  to  dogma. 
Their  loss  to  the  Church  is  the  penalty  which  must 
be  paid  for  the  defence  of  truth  by  untruth. 

There  is  nothing  in  the  spiritual  history  of  mankind 
that  is  comparable  to  the  passion  for  righteousness 
which  the  Bible  represents  in  the  true  progress  of  the 
world.  The  new  interest  which  historical  criticism  is 
arousing  in  its  study  may  be  the  means  of  freeing  it 
from  the  abuses  of  ignorance  and  superstition,  that  it 
may,  under  God,  serve  the  new  age  even  better  than 
the  past.  And  those  who  are  dreading  the  new  light 
will  find,  as  thousands  have  already  found,  that  textual 
and  historical  criticism  take  their  charter  from  Christ 
himself,  and  are  only  instruments  for  the  furtherance 
of  his  mission. 

Bible  study  on  the  factual  and  historical  side  has 
become  a  science  and  has  taken  its  place  in  the  brother- 
hood of  sciences.  For  though  on  the  surface  they  differ 
as  the  waves,  in  the  depths  they  are  one  as  the  sea. 
In  every  department  of  knowledge  the  wide-awake 
student  hears  "deep  calling  unto  deep":  "All  things 
are  yours,  whether  Paul  or  Apollos,  or  Cephas  or  the 
world,  or  life  or  death,  or  things  present  or  things  to 
come;  all  are  yours,  and  ye  are  Christ's,  and  Christ  is 
God's." 

Will  men  in  face  of  the  tremendous,  thrilling  sweep 
of  development,  which  we  have  tried  to  delineate,  go 
on  teaching  the  Old  Testament  in  the  foolish  patch- 


310  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

work  way  of  four  square  inches  here  and  four  square 

inches  there?    Without  recognition  of  the  gradual 

growth  of  moral  standards?   Without  recognition  of 

Hebrew  methods  of  historiography  by  which  literary 

documents  dating  centuries  apart  were  interwoven  or 

placed  side  by  side  in  contiguous  chapters?  Without 

historical  criticism  of  conflicting  sets  of  facts?  Without 

the  slightest  attempt  to  interpret  folk-lore  as  folk-lore, 

and  each  form  of  literature  in  accordance  with  the 

demands  of  its  type?  Will  they,  like  amiable  tourists 

of  religion,  continue  to  carry  home  bottles  from  the 

Jordan,  when  full  rivers  of  knowledge,  eager  to  shape 

new  channels  and  refresh  a  virgin  soil,  are  rolling  for 

the  baptism  of  eager-eyed   new  generations?    The 

better,  larger  day  must  come  to  gladden  the  eyes  of 

those 

"...  who,  rowing  hard  upstream, 
See  distant  gates  of  Eden  gleam, 
And  do  not  deem  it  all  a  dream." 


THE  END 


APPENDIX 


APPENDIX  A 
"JEHOVAH"   AND   "JAHVEH" 

The  name  "Jehovah"  is  a  word  of  recent  origin. 
It  was  quite  unknown  in  antiquity.  As  G.  F.  Moore 
has  shown  (OTSS,  i),  it  occurs  for  the  first  time 
sporadically  in  the  fourteenth  century.  After  the 
appearance  of  Petrus  Galatinus'  De  arcanis,  in  1518,  its 
use  became  general.  The  word  arose  in  a  peculiar  way. 
Until  some  centuries  after  the  Christian  era,  the  text 
of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  was  written  with  consonants 
only.  The  name  of  the  deity,  therefore,  was  written 
with  the  four  consonants  "  JHVH."  As  Hebrew  ceased 
to  be  a  spoken  tongue,  words  written  consonantally 
began  to  present  difficulties  to  readers.  This  fact  led 
to  the  invention  of  systems  of  vowel  points  which  were 
written  under  and  above  the  consonants. 

Long  before  the  invention  of  vowel  points  it  had 
become  customary,  on  account  of  superstitious  dread 
of  the  name  of  the  deity,  to  read  "Adonay"  (Lord) 
wherever  "JHVH"  occurred.  To  indicate  this  fact 
the  vowels  of  Adonay  were  connected  with  the  con- 
sonants "JHVH,"  the  short  "A"  of  "Adonay"  by  a 
regular  change  becoming  "e"  when  connected  with 
the  consonant  J.  Persons  ignorant  of  the  purpose  of 
the  vowels  began  to  read  them  with  the  consonants 
and  thus  the  preposterous  hybrid  "JeHoVaH"  arose. 


3i4  APPENDIX 

To  illustrate  what  happened,  let  us  suppose  that  the 
English  language  had  formerly  been  written  only  with 
consonants,  and  that  the  name  of   London,  conse- 
quently, appeared  as  "LNDN."  Let  us  suppose  fur- 
ther that  the  name  became  taboo,  and  that  it  was 
customary  to  read  in  its  place  the  word  "capital." 
To  indicate  this  to  the  reader  the  vowels  of  the  word 
("a,"   "t,"   "a,")  were  associated  with    "LNDN," 
after  vowels  began  to  be  employed.  But  persons  came 
along  who  did  not  know  this  fact,  and  who,  by  stuf- 
fing   the    skin   of    the   word    "London"   with    the 
bones  of  the  word  "capital,"  produced  the  monstros- 
ity "LaNiDaN."   Since  the  name  "Jehovah"  is  an 
equally  absurd  misadventure,  there  is  no  reason  why 
it  should  be  perpetuated  any  longer,  especially  since 
we  now  know  with  practical  certainty  that  the  word 
was  pronounced  "  Jahveh,"  and  was  sometimes  short- 
ened to  "Jahu,"  and  "Jah." 

The  meaning  of  the  name  is  of  little  consequence, 
for  even  if  its  original  significance  could  be  ascer- 
tained, it  would  bear  testimony  not  to  the  beginnings 
of  Israel's  religion,  but  to  a  much  more  primitive 
period  of  Semitic  religion  in  general.  Therefore,  the 
search  for  etymological  origins  of  "El,"  "Elohim," 
"El  Shaddai,"  and  "Jahveh"  is  a  negligible  matter 
in  this  connection.  The  possession  of  any  name  for  the 
deity  is  now  a  hindrance  rather  than  a  help. 


APPENDIX    B 
DUHM   ON  JER.   8:8   (p.  262) 

Duhm's  comment  on  Jer.  8 :  8,  is  so  illuminating  that 
I  venture  to  give  a  translation  of  the  main  portion:1 
"The  word  sopherim,  scribes,  .  .  .  does  not  in  any 
case  denote  mere  copyists  in  this  connection,  but 
authors,  men  of  the  book,  such  as  reduce  the  Torah 
[law]  to  writing,  or  concern  themselves  with  written 
Torah.  But  this  wonderfully  wise,  new  law  must  be 
connected  in  some  way  with  Deuteronomy ;  is  with  one 
reservation  to  be  regarded  as  identical  with  it.  A  res- 
ervation is  necessary  because  we  are  not  at  all  in- 
formed about  the  precise  appearance  of  Deuteronomy 
at  the  time  when  Jeremiah  wrote  these  strophes;  be- 
cause we  do  not  know  to  what  extent  its  contents 
coincided  with  the  book  that  we  possess  to-day.  For 
our  Deuteronomy,  it  must  be  remembered,  is  not  a 
book  of  one  piece;  some  parts  of  its  present  contents 
were  not  added  until  after  the  time  of  Jeremiah ;  other 
parts  may  subsequently  have  been  rejected,  and  among 
them,  perhaps,  just  such  parts  as  may  have  occasioned 
Jeremiah's  caustic  utterance  about  the  lying  pen  of  the 
scribes.  One  must  leave  room,  of  course,  for  the  possi- 
bility that  Jeremiah  here  enters  protest  against  some 
Deuteronomic  productions  and  contentions  which  are 

1  Das  Buck  Jeremia,  pp.  88-89. 


316  APPENDIX 

still  to  be  read  in  Deuteronomy  or  outside  of  it.  The 
bookmen,  as  we  know,  soon  engaged  in  the  task  of 
dragging  other  books  into  the  circle  of  their  redactional 
activity  in  order  to  provide  them  with  their  additions. 
That  old  mirror  of  justice,  for  instance,  which  we  now 
find  in  Ex.  20  :  23 — 23  :  33,  Jeremiah  may  still  have 
known  in  its  original  condition,  and  may  have  seen 
personally  how  these  bibliographers  incorporated  it 
into  their  own  productions  and  turned  it  into  a  law 
given  at  Mount  Sinai.  Furthermore,  being  the  son 
of  a  priest  and  conversant  with  earlier  conditions,  he 
could  not  be  ignorant  of  the  fact  that  the  Deuterono- 
mists,  as  soon  as  they  had  transferred  their  theory  of 
the  cultus  and  of  the  single  sanctuary  to  ancient  times, 
did  violence  to  the  latter  by  indiscriminately  placing 
under  the  ban  things  both  good  and  bad,  and  hoary 
customs  hallowed  by  the  names  of  the  patriarchs  and 
the  great  prophets  of  former  days.  One  point,  in  par- 
ticular, ...  is  worthy  of  emphasis.  Even  before  Deu- 
teronomy made  its  appearance,  Jeremiah  had  made 
war,  in  the  spirit  of  the  older  prophets,  against  the 
thoroughly  degraded  cults  of  the  local  sanctuaries. 
But  he  nowhere  expressed  the  opinion  that  Jahveh  had 
forbidden  worship  at  the  local  sanctuaries  as  such,  or 
had  commanded  the  offering  of  worship  at  the  temple 
only.  What  kind  of  an  impression  must  it  have  made 
upon  him  when  Deuteronomy  suddenly  appeared? 
Did  he  see  in  it,  without  reservation,  the  word  of 
Jahveh?  The  messengers  of  the  King  did  not  apply  to 


APPENDIX  317 

Jeremiah  when  they  were  looking  for  a  prophetic  en- 
dorsement of  the  divine  character  of  the  new  book! 
And  how  extraordinarily  rarely  Jeremiah  mentions  the 
book  or  the  reformation !  Were  it  not  for  this  passage 
one  might  suppose,  either  that  he  had  known  nothing 
about  it,  or  that  he  had  purposely  ignored  it.  Besides, 
this  single  reference  is  a  hostile  one.  There  is  only  one 
explanation  for  this:  the  idea  that  the  cults  practiced 
at  the  local  sanctuaries  were  alienating  men  from  the 
religion  of  Jahveh  had  been  abroad  for  a  long  time. 
The  literary  prophets  of  the  eighth  century  had 
strongly  expressed  their  conviction  on  that  point,  and 
Jeremiah  as  a  young  man  was  deeply  imbued  with  the 
same  idea.  In  any  case  Amos,  Isaiah,  and  others  of  the 
prophetic  succession,  did  not  look  upon  the  sacrificial 
system  with  any  more  favor  than  Jeremiah.  They  be- 
lieved that  the  people  would  either  have  to  return  to 
Jahveh  through  an  inward  reform,  or  he  would  dash 
them  to  utter  destruction.  Now  some  men  came  for- 
ward with  a  law  which  had  for  its  object  the  forcible 
abolishment  of  the  local  cults  and  the  institution  of  the 
sacrificial  cultus  in  their  stead  at  the  temple.  They 
remained  anonymous,  and,  perhaps  because  they  were 
familiar  with  the  views  of  Jeremiah,  Uriah,  and  some 
kindred  minds,  they  took  refuge  behind  the  mighty 
authority  of  Moses.  To  all  appearance  they  aimed  at 
the  same  thing  as  Jeremiah,  namely  the  purification  of 
the  religion  of  Jahveh.  But  they  actually  were  men  of 
a  very  different  stamp.  Whereas  Jeremiah  understood 


318  APPENDIX 

by  the  mishpat  Jahveh  [law  of  Jahveh]  the  supreme 
authority  of  morality,  they  soon  arrived  at  a  system  of 
mishpatim  [ordinances]  which  in  part  had  a  very  differ- 
ent purpose,  namely  to  serve  as  precepts  for  the 
regulation, of  the  sacrificial  ritual.  Was  that  anything 
essentially  new?  Could  a  man  like  Jeremiah  see  in  that 
an  adequate  remedy  for  the  hurt  of  his  time?  Was  not 
that  a  'sowing  among  the  thorns'?  Marti  may  have 
gone  a  little  too  far  in  maintaining  that  Jeremiah  was 
no  adherent  of  the  Deuteronomic  reform,  but  in  the 
last  analysis  he  is  right.  Jeremiah  lives  in  another 
world,  and  is  informed  by  a  spirit  very  different  from 
that  of  these  theologians.  He  can  only  characterize  it 
as  a  falsehood  when  these  'wise  men'  rave  about  the 
saving  value  of  the  '  temple  of  Jahveh '  —  perhaps  even 
connecting  the  safety  of  the  nation  with  the  vessels  of 
the  temple  (28  : 3) — and  declare  that  since  the  achieve- 
ment of  the  reform, '  peace '  may  be  expected  of  Jahveh. 
But  Jahveh  himself  had  vouchsafed  to  Jeremiah  a 
glimpse  of  the  dark  future.  The  putting  to  sleep  of  the 
conscience  of  the  people  was  to  him  a  more  grievous 
falsification  than  all  the  violence  done  to  Hebrew 
history  by  Deuteronomic  pens." 


INDEXES 


INDEX  OF  SCRIPTURE  CITATIONS 


GENESIS 

4:14  62, 144 

4i5 4i 

4:24 4i 

4:26 103 

5:29 32 

6:6 64 

6:12 83 

9:5 40 

11:5 64 

12:10 72 

14:7 35 

18:14 64 

18:21  •  64 

18:25 84 

20:1-18 72 

20:7 57 

21:17 59 

22:11-15 59 

3i:49 76 

31:19-30 98 

EXODUS 

3:i4 103 

6:3 103 

11:2 73 

11:1-13 124 

12:35-36 73 

19: x  1-20 59 

21:7-11 51.  "4 

22:18-20 80 

23:1 125 

24:3-8 76 

24:7 77 

24:10 59 

32:4 200 

32:9-H 7o 

33:5 7o 

34:5 59 

34:7 47 

34:20 101 

34:24 127 

34:28 91 

LEVITICUS 

19:20 52 

24:16 104 

27:32 297 


NUMBERS 

10:35-36 36 

21:8 99 

21:14 69 

35:i-8 297 

DEUTERONOMY 

4:12 100 

5:22 93 

6:4 97 

6:10-15 191 

7:16 235 

9:20-21 44 

12:29 196 

13:15 IX7 

14:27 300 

18:3-4 296 

19:16-17 126 

21:1-9 288 

21:15 II2.  247 

21:18-21  113 

22:23-24 119 

23:9-14 256 

23:18 198 

24:16 48,238 

26:14 l22 

28:43 233 

JOSHUA 

6:17-24 117 

9:23 224 

19:14.27 35 

JUDGES 

2:10 38 

9:23 °7 

17:1-13 98 

I   SAMUEL 

1 :  19-22 56 

4:7  36 

6:9 62 

6: 19-20 80 

8:20 55 

14:6 64 

15:33 IJ7 

16:10 67 


322    INDEX  OF  SCRIPTURE  CITATIONS 


19:9 98 

26: 19 62, 67, 144 

II   SAMUEL 

3:i3-i5 120 

6:2,  5,  16 36 

6:7-9 66 

6:8 68 

21:9 118 

I   KINGS 

2:10 38 

18:23 101 

20:28 35 


II    KINGS 


3:27  ••• 
4:22  . . . 

5:i7  ••• 
11:4  .... 

17:24,28 


59 
107 

63 
107 

63 


PSALMS 

6:5 61 

50:7-15 287 

PROVERBS 

4:1 114 

23:13 114 

29:17 114 

ISAIAH 

1:13 108 

1:15 185 

2:10-19 181 

3:8-15 182 

5:16 178 

5:18 180 

6:3 169 

6:9-10 174 

7:4-9 183 

18:4 183 

22:2 185 

22: 12-14 175.  186 

29:13 180 

30:9 184 

30:15 184 

38:18-19 61 

JEREMIAH 

2:2 41 

6:20 272 

7:4-7 265 

7:8-11 266 


7:12-15 266 

7:21-22 272 

8:8-9 262 

9;4 75 

16:19-20 274 

26:11-15 267 

3i:33 278 

EZEKIEL 
44:io/. 304 


HOSEA 


1:4  .... 
2:11 

2:14-15 
3:4  .... 

4:1  .... 
4:8.... 
6:6 


165 

108 

44 

98 

155 

294 

155 

6:16,  17,  20 285 

8:11-13 284 

9:4      292 

10:12 155.283 

13:7-8 160 

I3:n 162 

AMOS 

i:3,  13 143 

3:10 142 

4:4 283 

5:i4 150,  155 

5:21 I53>28i 

7:i7 144 

9:2 145 

MICAH 

3:5 297 

3:n 205,  263 

3:12 206 

6:6-8 287 

MATTHEW 

5:18 7 

5:21 131 

7:12 7 

22:37-40 7 

24:20 109 


MARK 


7:i5 
2:27 


9 

no' 


LUKE 


16:16 9 


INDEX  OF  SUBJECTS 


Aaron,  as  symbol,  216. 
Aaron's  bull-image,  200. 
Abimelech,  72. 
Abraham's  sacrifice,  197. 
Abraham  stories,  72. 
Absalom,  246. 
Achan,  79. 
/Adultery,   119-23,  251;  detection 

of,  35. 
Aliens,  treatment  of,  230. 
Altar  dues,  299. 
Amalekites,  241. 
Amarna  letters,  78,  188. 
Ammonites,  237. 
Amos,    and    Amaziah,    298;    and 

Hosea,  75 ;  not  a  monotheist,  143 ; 

theodicy  of,  134;  writings  of,  132. 
Amos's  idea  of  good,  140. 
Ancestor  worship,  37,  38,  122. 
Anti-alien  feeling,  244. 
Ark,  of  Jah veh ,  36, 200 ;  condemned, 

272;  ignored  in  D,  201. 
Ashera,  33. 
Assyrian  cults,  211. 
Astral  religion,  211,  217. 
Atonement,   by   blood,   288,    300; 

mechanical,  81 ;  ritual,  discarded, 

289. 
Authority,  parental,  252;  priestly, 

252. 

Baal,  head  of  family,  37. 
Baalism,  absorption  of,  189. 
Bedawin,  24;  religion  of,  28. 
Beliefs,  persistence  of,  171. 
Blood,  cleansing  by,  288,  300. 
Blood-revenge,  40,  116. 
Bull-image,  199. 


Clean  and  unclean,  78,  81. 
Client,  226,  232. 
XToncubinage,  50-53. 
Covenant,  Book  of  the,  77. 
Covenant,  new,  279;  uses  of,  75. 
Covetousness,  127. 
Creditors'  rights,  232. 
Criticism,  value  of,  165,  309. 
Cultus  and  religion,  138. 
Custom  and  religion,  55. 


Dead,  worship  of  the,  38,  61, 122. 

Death  penalties,  251. 

Deborah,  Song  of,  18,  212. 

Debtors,  232. 

Decalogue,  only  for  men,  94 ;  origins, 
87-131 ;  the  moral,  95;  the  ritual, 
90. 

Decalogues,  variant,  89,  93. 

Determinism,  prophetic,  162,  174. 

Deuteronomy,  abuse  of,  207;  char- 
acter of,  316;   motives  behind, 
207. 
^Divorce,  49,  50. 

Ecstasy,  prophetic,  171. 
Edomites,  236. 
Egyptians,  236. 
Elisha,  164,  171,  232,  245. 
Ethical  quality  of  D,  234. 
Ethics,  social,  of  D,  218. 
Eusebius  quoted,  100. 
Evil  (Amos),  141. 
Exclusivism  of  D,  234,  244. 
Expiation  by  sacrifice,  292. 
Expurgation  of  traditions,  21. 
Ezekiel,  276,  301;  motives  of,  306. 


"Calves,  golden,"  99,  199 
Canaan,  culture  of,  190. 
Canaanite-Hebrew  sanctuaries,  195. 
Captives,  female,  243. 


^Children,  as  property,  84,  113;  il-  ./Father,  authority  of,  46,  III 


legitimate,  240 
Child  sacrifice,  92,  196. ^ 
Cicero  quoted,  71. 


Faith  versus  truth,  308. 
, /Family,  Babylonian,  49;  Hebrew, 
37,  I II ;  solidarity  of,  46. 
Family  institutions,  37. 
Farmers,  30. 


Fellahin,  30. 

Feuds  bequeathed,  237. 

Fines,  sacrificial,  52,  294. 


324 


INDEX   OF  SUBJECTS 


First-born,  privileges  of,  45. 
*f  First-born's  rights,  247. 
First  fruits,  190. 
Flood,  moral  aspect  of,  83. 
"Food  of  his  God,"  287. 
Food  taboos,  80. 
Fusion  of  Jahveh-Baal,  193,  215. 
Future  life,  148. 

Ger,  the,  226. 

Gibeonites,  the,  224. 

Giving  to  Jahveh,  293. 

Glory  of  Jahveh,  180. 

God,  immoral  ideas  of,  161. 

God,  in  human  terms,  159. 

Go' el,  the,  40,  46. 

Goethe  and  the  decalogue,  89. 

Golden  calf,  the,  99,  199. 

Good  and  evil  (Amos),  141,  143. 

Group  morality,  95,  123,  135,  230, 

277. 
Guilt,  infective,  82. 

Half-nomads,  29. 

Hammurabi  Code,  88,  226,  248. 

Hananiah,  277. 

Hatred  of  enemies,  238. 

Heaven,  in  J  and  E,  60. 

Heresy  trial,  first,  269. 

Hierodules,  198. 

Holiness  (Isaiah),  176;  moral,  178; 

moral  versus  ritual,  255. 
"Holy"  (taboo),  79,  176. 
Homicide,  116. 
Hosea,    153;  no  monotheist,   163; 

on  sacrifice,  283;  versus  Elisha, 

164. 
"Host  of  heaven,"  211. 
Husband  as  baal,  37. 

Idolatry,  penalty  for,  253. 
Images,  98,  163;  of  Jahveh,  199. 
Immanence  of  God,  172. 
Individualism,  166,  278. 
Inspiration,  prophetic,  171. 
Interest  on  loans,  231. 
Inviolability  party,  205,  263. 
Isaac,  sacrifice  of,  197. 
Isaiah,  167;  on  sacrifice,  185,  284. 
Isaiah's  call,  174. 

J  and  E  documents,  19. 
Jacob's  deception,  73,  229. 
Jahveh,    and    foreigners,    70;    the 


avenger,  40;  called  Baal,  193;  ca- 
pricious, 67;  celestial,  59;  guar- 
dian of  customs,  140;  intramun- 
dane,  56,  145;  localized,  56,  62, 
70;  moral  limitations,  65;  phy- 
sical limitations,  63;  the  name, 
313;  taboo  of  the  name,  102. 

Jahveh-Baal  worship,  202. 

Jahveh's  subordinates,  212,  217. 

Javhism,  agricultural,  31. 

Jealousy  of  Jahveh,  162. 

"Jehovah,"  or  Jahveh,  313. 

Jehu's  revolt,  164. 

Jeremiah,  and  D,  261 ;  monotheistic, 
274;  on  sacrifice,  271;  personal 
history,  258;  Book  of,  distorted, 
280. 

Judgments  of  Jahveh,  160. 

Justice,  abuse  of,  158;  ancient,  41. 

Kadesh,  125. 

Kenites,  42. 

Kinship,  patrilineal,  27. 

"Knowledge"  of  God,  155. 

Law,  defined  by  Jesus,  7. 
Lecky  quoted,  71. 
Legality  and  morality,  142. 
Levirate  marriage,  38. 
Levites,  299,  302,  307. 
Loans,  230. 
Lot,  sacred,  157. 
Love  of  Jahveh,  154. 
Lucan  quoted,  74. 


Majesty  of  Jahveh,  180. 
•TMarital  fidelity,  121. 
"  Marriage  relation,  48. 
\ -'Marriage,  stepmother,  247. 

Massah  and  Meribah,  36. 

Massebas,  29. 

Moabites  (blood-feud),  237. 

Mohammed,  26,  250. 

Moloch  (Molech),  197. 

Money,  tainted,  198. 

Monojahvism,  187. 

Monotheism,  96,  213,  274. 

Monotheism  (Amos),  143-47. 

Moon,  full,  as  Sabbath,  106. 

Morality,   of  Amos,    150;   double 
standard,  121 ;  tribal,  71. 

Moses,  and  sacrifice,  271;  religion 
of,  18. 

Motives,  judgment  of,  128,  142. 


INDEX  OF  SUBJECTS 


325 


Mountains,  holy,  34. 

Murder,  116,  251;  of  slaves,  251. 

Naaman,  63. 
Names,  dread  of,  103. 
National-god-idea,  135,  235. 
Nazirites,  177;  holiness  of  the,  177. 
Nethinim  (slaves),  224. 
"No-gods,"  215. 
Nomadic  festivals,  39. 
Nomadic  reactions,  42. 
Nomadism,  23. 
Nomads,  24. 
Nomad  society,  27. 


Oracle,  293. 
Ordeals,  35. 
''Orphans,  249. 
Orthodoxy,  264, 270. 


-'Parental  blessings  and  curses,  45, 

115- 

-^Parents,  sanctity  of,  45. 
Particularism,  136;  of  D,  214,  217. 
Passover,  39. 

Patriarchs,  the,  as  ideals,  71. 
Patrimony  of  priests,  303. 
Penalties,  meaning  of,  251. 
Pilgrim-feasts,  32,  282. 
Polydemonism,  33. 
Polygamy,  50. 
Polyjahvism,  202,  209. 
Portents,  133. 
Possession  theory,  172. 
Priesthood,  Jerusalem,  206,  217. 
Priestly  monopoly,  299. 
Priests,  depravity  of,  157. 
Priests'  portion,  294. 
Prophetism,  development  of,  172. 
Prophets,  societies  of,  170. 
Prophet,  test  of  a,  267. 
Prostitutes,  "holy,"  197. 
Punishment,  collective,  83. 
Punishments,  divine,  148. 
Purity,  ritual,  241,  281. 


Rechabites,  42. 
Reform,  Josiah's,  317. 
Refuge,  cities  of,  117,  252. 
Religions,  two,  286,  301. 
Responsibility,   collective,   46,   47, 

82,  238. 
Retribution,  ante-mortem,  i52;com- 

munal,  149. 


Revelation,  Hebrew  idea  of,  169. 
Revelation  (Isaiah),  175. 
Revelation,  modern  idea  of,  12. 
Revenue  of  priests,  296. 
Rewards,  divine,  148. 
Righteousness  (loyalty),  78. 
Righteousness,    forensic,    84,    141, 

143- 
Rock  (term  for  God),  34. 


Sabbath,    Babylonian,    108;   lunar 

feast,  108;  the  Hebrew,  104. 
Sacerdotalism,  301. 
Sacrifice,  in  D,  270,  290;  Jeremiah 

on,  271 ;  repudiated,  281 ;  Semitic 

ideas  of,  138. 
Saul,  69. 
Seduction,  245. 
"Seek  Jahveh,"  139. 
Serpent,  the  bronze,  99. 
Sex  morality,  120. 
Shema,  the,  97. 
Sheol,  60. 
Shiloh,  208,  266. 
Sinai-Horeb,  34. 
Sin,  as  disloyalty,  78 ;  early  ideas  of, 

47.  81. 
Slander,  125. 

Slave,  murder  of  a,  118,  251. 
^Slavery,  221. 
Slaves,  cannot  witness,  125;  female, 

51;  foreign,  224;  Hebrew,  222. 
Social  ethics  of  D,  218. 
Solomon,  247. 
Springs,  sacred,  35. 
Stealing,  123. 
Stones,  sacred,  28,  33. 
"Strangers,"    226;    treatment    of, 

28. 
Sun,  eclipses  of  the,  133,  161. 
Survivals,  33,  37. 
Syncretism,  195. 


Taboo  ("holy"),  79- 

Temple  slaves,  224. 

Temple,   the,   no  palladium,   206, 

264,  270. 
Teraphim,  98. 
Tomb,  family,  60. 
Torch,  157,  158. 
Traditions,  use  of,  22. 
Tranquillity,  divine,  183. 
Transcendence  of  God,  172. 
Tree-cult,  33. 


326 


INDEX  OF  SUBJECTS 


Trees,  destruction  of,  245. 
Trust  in  Jahveh,  183. 

Unity,  of  Jahveh,  210;  of  the  Sanc- 
tuary, 208. 
Universalism,  97,  275. 
Uzzah,  the  death  of,  66. 

Victims  of  progress,  248. 
Visions,  1 7 1. 
Viticulture,  32. 


Water,  sacred,  35. 
Wells  and  springs,  30,  35. 
^Widows,  249. 
Witchcraft,  80. 
^Witness,  false,  124. 
Women,  as  property,  37,  246;  can- 
not witness,  125. 
Worship,  centralized,  208,  216;  of 
the  dead,  38,  61,  122. 

Zadokite  priests,  302. 
Zephaniah,  211. 


V.  *  1 

3.63  . 

5f-3 


CAMBRIDGE  .  MASSACHUSETTS 
U    .    S    .    A 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

Los  Angeles 

This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


NOV 


)Q 


te'DURLU 
ombc  DEC    5  — 

NOV  2 


518SB 


H0Vl2«f* 


m  1'8» 


r\ 


'  ' 


Form  L9-Series  444 


'^char, 


**6I 


Kurl 


31 


1379 


\982 


UNIVE^  ALIFORNIA 


-r  i^n     *  vi  1  1  cr>r  XPG 


3  1158  004 


6  2201 


JC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


AA    000  377  661    4 


til 

jjl 

\\ 

Ijlljj  1  1  Jijji  jjjj 

